Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CO-OPERATIVE BANK BILL

NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL

Bills read the Third time and passed.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is "That the Bill be read a Second time—

Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You appeared to

give the impression that the Bristol Corporation Bill was receiving a Second Reading. In fact, I understand that that is not correct.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that under the Standing Orders, once a Bill has been objected to and a Motion has been placed on the Notice Paper, the Measure must automatically go down for a seven o'clock debate before its Second Reading can be achieved?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I confess that I expected to hear a shout ex abundanti cautela of "Object".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that it is probably because the microphones were not working properly that you did not hear the Chairman of Ways and Means say "Tomorrow", and that had you heard him say that, you would not have been misled by the malfunctioning of the microphones?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

Bill read a Second time and committed.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) No. 2 BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Farmers (Nature Conservancy)

Mr. David James: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give additional financial encouragement to those farmers who conform to agreed standards of nature conservation and preservation of the countryside.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): This is a matter which I believe must be left to the good sense of landowners and farmers because of the obvious practical difficulty of defining any basis upon which such encouragement might be given.

Mr. James: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the conservationist lobby, in the broadest sense of the term, is breathing ever more heavily down farmers' necks, for good reason, though farmers feel that they should not be left to bear the entire cost of preserving the countryside for the nation? Will he consider approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether, for example, farmers could be given a tax incentive from earned income to enable them to co-operate in nature conservation?

Mr. Prior: I recognise the point of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it would be very hard indeed to put it into practice. Farmers are being asked nowadays to undertake, on behalf of the community, a large conservation job, but it is a task which I think they prefer to work out in their own way.

Mr. Mackie: As the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that a definite cost is involved, does he agree that the agricultural community should not be expected to meet all these costs, some of which are becoming extremely heavy?

Mr. Prior: This is a factor which I believe should be taken into account each year in assessing farmers' prices because this is something which the farming community as a whole has to bear on behalf of the nation.

Sire Licensing

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his consultations on the future of bull and boar licensing; and when he intends to make a statement.

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet completed his review of policy on sire licensing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.—[Vol. 812, c. 145.]

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of the suggestion that bull licensing might be abolished in England and Wales but not in Scotland? Does he appreciate that such a decision would be scientifically indefensible and quite impracticable?

Mr. Stodart: I do not wish to go beyond what I have already said. I hope that I shall not be guilty of an anatomical inaccuracy in saying that the Government will be taking the bull by the—well, by the horns before long.

Afforestation

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of good agricultural land have been acquired for private afforestation in each of the last three years.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: Statistics of land acquired for private afforestation are not available, but almost all such planting takes place on land of relatively low agricultural value.

Mr. Hardy: Would not the Minister agree that this seems to be a rather inequitable situation, since it is possible for private forestry concerns to plant on good agricultural land whilst the Forestry Commission is not easily or generally able to plant on land of that quality? Would he, therefore, reconsider and review the whole situation?

Mr. Stodart: On 8th December I said that the Government were undertaking a


review of various aspects of forestry policy. This is one of the matters that would be considered.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it not a fact that 95 per cent. of our timber requirements are imported, at great expense, and that, therefore, all afforestation of land, good and bad, should be encouraged, whether it is private or public?

Mr. Stodart: There is a considerable import-saving potential here. I am a very strong believer in an integration of forestry with agriculture for the benefit of each.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to effect a change in the taxation arrangements for private forestry, particularly where this activity prohibits public access or makes no provision for amenity or conservation.

Mr. Stodart: Taxation arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware of recent studies of the possibility that in a few years' time we may find that the greatest value from British woodland will lie in the amenity and capacity for recreation which it may provide? If that is the case, would he not, therefore, recommend to his right hon. Friend that tax concessions should be reviewed so that the possibility of providing for the nation's future needs is at least allowed?

Mr. Stodart: I agree that amenity is an extremely important consideration. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said. It may be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman to know that all private schemes which are submitted to the Forestry Commission for grant aid are scrutinised for the effects which they may have on the landscape. If the Commission thinks that amenity will suffer, applications are not accepted without amendment.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is the Minister aware that, beautiful though trees may be to look at, they are also a crop, just like wheat, barley or oats? Would he have regard to that fact and so increase taxation concessions that there may be, in the national interest, a growth of this

industry and crop to the benefit of everybody?

Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend will not be in the least surprised to know that I have no responsibility for tax concessions.

Mr. David Clark: I associate myself completely with the need for more timber. Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country, especially in the Yorkshire Dales, there is increasing disappointment and disillusionment about the amount of private forestry which is taking place in areas to which the public are being denied access.

Mr. Stodart: I repeat that both private and Forestry Commission plantings have a great deal to contribute to our economy.

Experimental Husbandry Centres

Mr. Mudd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes any changes in the functions of his Department's experimental husbandry stations; and whether he is satisfied that their organisation is consistent with the new advisory objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the functions of the experimental centres are consistent with the objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, but he will, of course, keep their work under review.

Mr. Mudd: Would my hon. Friend accept that his answer will give partial satisfaction to the industry, but the right to review the situation must continue to cause a certain degree of alarm?

Mr. Stodart: I can only repeat that we shall keep the work of the institutes under the most careful review. Their aims—to provide information for advising officers and farmers, and for development under local conditions work which is done elsewhere—we regard as of the greatest importance.

Glasshouse Crops

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the area of


glasshouse crops and how this compares with the position in 1960 and 1965.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend say whether they have increased? If they have, would he not agree, therefore, that there is a fair profitability—there must be if they have increased—in these particular crops? Would he also not agree that to ensure profitability, as they are not covered by the Price Review, special arrangements will have to be made in the near future?

Mr. Stodart: It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that the figures for 1970 are 240 acres higher than in 1960, but in 1960 figures did not include 230 acres on holdings of under one acre; therefore, the position has been pretty static. A great deal of help has been given in that £37 million of investment in glass has been grant-aided since 1966.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the Government saying to the Horticultural Committee of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, which is concerned about dumping, especially of cucumbers and tomatoes?

Mr. Stodart: That is more a question for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.

Following is the information:


Acreage of crops grown in glasshouses in England and Wales (July Censuses)


1970
3,759


1965
3,342


1960
3,516

Notes

(1) This information relates to holdings with not less than 1,000 square feet of glass used for commercial production.

(2) The figure for 1970 includes an estimated 230 acres of crops grown in glasshouses on holdings of one acre or less of agricultural land, returns from which were not collected in 1960 and 1965.

Meat Labelling

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Federation of Meat Traders' Association about the Meat and Livestock Commission's meat labelling scheme; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: None, Sir. This is a voluntary scheme introduced by the Meat and Livestock Commission and any representation about it should be made to the Commission.

Mr. Strang: Does the scheme have the full and unqualified support of the Minister? What steps has he taken to persuade the federation to cease its petty opposition and to adopt the more responsible attitude of its Scottish counterpart?

Mr. Stodart: This is a voluntary code entirely within the responsibility of the Commission. I can well appreciate some of the objections voiced by the federation. They are practical objections. But it is encouraging that the Scottish butchers, Sainsbury's and the Cooperative movement, have recommended the code.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the essential feature of these codes is that they should remain voluntary?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: Would the Minister think again about this matter, bearing in mind that the labelling scheme gives valuable information to shoppers, who find it increasingly difficult when buying meat because of the modern methods of preparing and displaying meat by butchers?

Mr. Stodart: That being so, I am certain that, if this is a useful exercise, housewives will favour it in going from one butcher to another.

European Economic Community

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, according to the latest available figures, are the guaranteed prices in Great Britain, and the European Economic Community intervention price, for barley and wheat, respectively.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The United Kingdom guaranteed prices for 1971–72 are £1·45 per cwt. for barley and £1·63 per cwt. for wheat. The European Economic Community's intervention prices for January, 1971, are £1·94 per cwt. for barley and £2·18 per cwt. for wheat. Prices for 1971–72 are still under consideration by the Community.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Would my hon. Friend say whether, in the event of our negotiations with the Community being successful, this would be a favourable matter for our producers, or the reverse?

Mr. Stodart: As a producer of both these commodities myself, I should not have regarded the future as altogether unpleasant.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what will be the effects of his right hon. Friend's proposed intervention price of £3·5 up to £6 on the price of bread in this country?

Mr. Stodart: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I see no connection with the Question which has been asked.

Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that today in the Common Market countries there is a great demonstration by farmers demanding higher and higher prices? What effect will this have on the budget of British housewives if we should enter?

Mr. Stodart: I notice that farmers in the Community are demonstrating, and the proposals for 1971–72 are that the price of barley and wheat should rise to £2·04 and £2·20 respectively. Without having a Question put down, I could not give the sort of answer which my hon. Friend, with his very meticulous mind, would wish me to give.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he estimates that Great Britain will be able to influence the development of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community if she joins.

Mr. Prior: As a member of the Community we would have a full voice in its institutions and the development of the common agricultural policy.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend say whether during the negotiations he has found that those responsible for the agricultural aspects of the Community are flexible or inflexible in their approach? Will he further say that the progress they have made in restructuring the Community's agricultural policy and the reduction of surpluses are matters in which we might be able to make a contribution?

Mr. Prior: To the latter half of my hon. Friend's question the answer is "Yes". To the former part, about the flexibility of the Commission in respect of British agriculture and British entry, the answer is that we would like them to be more flexible still.

Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister's answer to the first part of his hon. Friend's supplementary question indicate that the Government, in the context of the Common Market, would use their influence to see that producer prices were reduced rather than increased?

Mr. Prior: I think it would be wiser to get the terms of entry before we discuss what we shall do after we get entry.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend persuaded that if negotiations go on he can obtain favourable considerations for the hill farmers of this country under the terms of the E.E.C. agricultural policy?

Mr. Prior: This remains to be discussed and negotiated in Brussels. I assure my hon. Friend that we have the position of hill farmers very much in the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Mackie: Have not the Government, by committing themselves to a levy system, lost a point? If we join the Common Market and want to change the common agricultural policy, we have committed ourselves already and lost the argument.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. It was the previous Government that committed themselves to the common agricultural policy. Once that step was taken, that was the end of the story.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that he has committed himself to a managed market before entering the Common Market, which was not the policy of the Labour Party? Does he accept that, in the event of our entering the Common Market, a transitional period of less than five years would be damaging and unacceptable to British agriculture?

Mr. Prior: The longer the transitional period the better and the easier it is for us to make the transition—that is quite clear. We have always made it clear that we were committed to the levy


policy, whether or not we went into the Common Market.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures will exist within the enlarged Community for British producer organisations to influence prices of agricultural produce.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: There will be an annual review of the economic conditions and prospects of agriculture in the enlarged Community. This will provide for effective consultation with producers' organisations at the Community level before the Council of Ministers takes decisions on prices. At the national level, the Government will also be free to conduct an annual review with producers' representatives.

Mr. Blaker: As it is an essential part of the Community's agricultural policy to rely on producer groups to stabilise the market, is there any reason why this should not be true for horticulture?

Mr. Stodart: None at all, and it is a fact, I think—if I recall an answer which I gave my hon. Friend some months ago —that the amount of horticultural produce at present marketed by co-operative groups is very small and there is big room for improvement.

Mr. Deakins: Why will not the Minister agree to place the arrangements for the E.E.C. review of agriculture for United Kingdom producers here on a statutory basis, which would give producers some confidence that their interests would be looked after both in Brussels and in this country?

Mr. Stodart: Farmers will be able to put their views on prices to the Commission just as they can put their views to the Government now. They have no absolute right of consultation under the present system, nor have they any right to take part in the decisions.

Mr. Farr: What effect will the domestic review have? Will it be considered in conjunction with a later review in Brussels?

Mr. Stodart: The review in this country will not be a price determination; it will be a general look at economic conditions and prospects, and thereafter there will be a review in the Community.

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which inshore fishermen are likely to benefit from entry into the Common Market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Prior: Our detailed examination of the implications of the common fisheries policy is still proceeding. This includes contacts with the Commission at Brussels on aspects of the policy, certain details of which have not yet been settled. It would be unwise to make an assessment until we have all the essential clarification.

Mr. Marten: If my right hon. Friend cannot make an assessment, will he nevertheless give an assurance that in our negotiations with the Common Market he will make it a prerequisite of acceptance of any package deal that our inshore fishing industry shall not suffer?

Mr. Prior: I am determined, as my hon. Friend knows, to protect the legitimate interests of the inshore fishing industry. But when one is negotiating, as we are at the moment, it would be unwise to declare all one's hand in advance.

Mr. Spearing: What interests of the inshore fishermen are illegitimate?

Mr. Prior: I should have thought that there were certain interests, such as conservation, which were extremely important; and this is the sort of interest which must be worked out.

Food Prices

Mr. Carter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the food bill of both a single retirement pensioner and a married retirement pensioner couple has increased over the past six months.

Mr. Prior: The Department of Employment's Retail Price Index for a single pensioner household showed an increase of 1·8 per cent. for food between the second and fourth quarters of 1970; and 1·9 per cent. for a two person pensioner household.

Mr. Carter: That hardly answers the Question. Does not the Minister accept that, translated into real pounds, shillings


and pence, this means a tremendous increase in the cost of living for old-age pensioners—a higher increase than in recent years? Coupled with the announcements made by the Minister in his review last week, this will amount in total to a drastic falling off in the living standards of old-age pensioners. Will he, therefore, urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase dramatically the old-age pension in his coming Budget?

Mr. Prior: I am well aware that inflation bears most heavily on pensioners and others on fixed incomes, and I am continually stressing the urgent need for the country to get this under control. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend admit at once that the increases that he has just denoted for food prices for old-age pensioners represent less than 2p in the pound, and are about one quarter of the advances which have taken place in nationalised industries? In view of all the increases put together, will he step along the corridor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for a 10s. increase for the single old-age pensioner and 15s. for the two pensioner household to take effect at the earliest moment?

Mr. Prior: As my hon. Friend knows only too well, pension matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, not for me.

Mr. Speaker: The longer the supplementary questions, the fewer I can call.

Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not approving the hon. Member's supplementary question.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there was in the retail price of food items other than those which show significant seasonal variations from the middle of December, 1970, to the latest available date, according to the Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Prior: The sub-group of the Food Index which covers non-seasonal foods rose by 1·4 per cent. between 15th

December, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that it does not give us any pleasure to go on about these figures every time he answers Questions, but the figures are bad news for the housewife? The figure which he has just mentioned means that non-seasonal foods will have gone up 7 per cent. since June. Will he clarify the words of the Prime Minister last June? I will not quote them, because I am not trying to make a party political point. Were the people of this country wrong to interpret those words as meaning that there would be Government action to reduce the rate of price increases?

Mr. Prior: The whole time there is Government action to reduce the rate of increase. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman who does not want to make a party point by saying that in two out of the last three years of Labour Government the increase in non-seasonal food prices between December and February was greater than it has been this year.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) that this country still has the cheapest food in Europe, that a weak agricultural industry would mean that we were at the mercy of imported food and that the real reason for the increase in the cost of food is the legislation introduced by the Labour Government?

Mr. Prior: That is very much to the point. As I said two months ago, we know that we have a difficult period ahead of us, but, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are now beginning to get on top of inflation, and that is the best thing we can do.

Mr. Cant: May I help the right hon. Gentleman by asking him whether he is aware, on the basis of evidence in respectable newspapers, that there appears to be a serious racket in the prices of retail bacon and pork'? Will he reduce the cost of living, especially for poorer people, by investigating this? For old people, and others, there is nothing tastier than a bit of nice cheap bacon for breakfast.

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the price of bacon is cheaper now than it has been for three years.

Hon. Members: Danish bacon.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the way in which at Question Time after Question Time he blusters through his Questions is not appreciated by the country as a whole? Has he estimated the likely increase in food prices during 1971? Is he aware that some experts say that the increase may be as high as 10 per cent.? Whilst the House realises that there are some factors beyond his control for which he cannot be blamed, there are other matters which are well within his control. Will he now do something about it? Will he, for example, call a meeting of the Food Manufacturers Federation to discuss whether the manufacturers can absorb some of their costs in their profits and so stabilise the price of food?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I am well aware of the difficulties of this subject, and I want to be as helpful as I can to the House, but I do not think that trying to make an estimate for the rest of this year would be helpful.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there has been in the price of the 100 faster-selling branded foods covered by his Department's survey of retail prices between the last survey before decimalisation day and the latest available survey.

Mr. Prior: In the four weeks between 9th February and 9th March about 92 per cent. of the price quotations for the faster-selling branded foods covered by this survey were unchanged or correctly converted to the decimal equivalents of their former £.s.d. prices. Of the remainder, just over 4 per cent, were dearer and over 3 per cent. were cheaper. These changes mainly reflected movements in manufacturers' prices, wholesale market prices or the incidence of special promotions.

Mr. Barnes: I agree that the changeover to decimal currency went fairly satisfactorily, except, perhaps, in the greengrocery trade where there is, I think, some evidence of rounding up, but is the Minis-

ter aware that the Financial Times grocery index indicates that the upward trend, which was very marked between December and January, is still continuing between February and March? To come back to the point which I put previously, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government's incomes policy, such as it is, would have a much better response if the action which the Minister says the Government are taking over food prices were more evident?

Mr. Prior: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now says that the situation as regards decimalisation was comparatively satisfactory, and I hope that his hon. Friends will support him in that, since it was not what they said on the last occasion when we answered Questions on the matter.
The Government's incomes policy is now seen to be having results, and this, in the end, is the best indication that price rises will stabilise.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food as measured by the retail price index for the nine months between 18th June and 18th March.

Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Index of Retail Food Prices rose by 4·2 per cent.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, bad as those figures are, the housewife is in for a much heftier increase as a result of the Price Review last week, and will he now publish, out of the thousands of prices which go into the compilation of the retail price index, a list of the prices which have been cut at a stroke since 18th June, and also a list of the shops at which the housewife can buy those goods?

Mr. Prior: What the hon. Gentleman presents as facts are not true. The increase resulting from the Price Review determination last week consists of an increase in the price of milk which is equivalent to ¾ per cent. on the cost of food index, and once the levy schemes start to operate, there will be an additional ½ per cent. over the following 12 months. That is the sum total of the increase stemming from the Price Review.

Mr. Wiggin: Could my right hon. Friend say what relation the retail food price index bears to the total cost of living index?

Mr. Prior: The retail food index comprises one quarter of the costs covered by the cost of living index.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that greengrocers throughout the country have just raised the price of cauliflowers by 10 old pence, an increase of 50 per cent., following the Government's levy just imposed? What will he do to restore the former prices?

Mr. Prior: Apart from the fact that I do not for a moment believe that to be true throughout the country as a whole—

Mr. Allaun: My wife has just paid that.

Mr. Prior: —there are ample supplies of fresh vegetables of different varieties available at the moment, and I suggest that the housewife takes advantage of them.

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect the Farm Price Review will have on prices in the shops.

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect on retail food prices of the recent Price Review determinations.

Mr. Prior: The price of milk is to be increased by ½p per pint in July and will add about ¾ per cent. to the Food Index. The only other determinations which can effect retail prices are those for sugar beet and potatoes but these should not in themselves lead to any increase in retail prices.

Mr. Kinsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The housewife is interested in the effect on her overall family budget. How do the determinations affect the direct price to the customer and the taxation price to the customer?

Mr. Prior: Far from being the soak-the-housewife price review that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) talked about, the last Price Review compares very

well with some of those conducted when the Opposition were in power. The housewife will bear 44 per cent. of the increase this year, compared with 48 per cent. in the right hon. Gentleman's last Price Review and an average of nearly 50 per cent. over the past six years.

Mr. Deakins: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the £60 million-£70 million extra will fall on the housewife as a direct result of this year's Price Review determinations, there will almost certainly be extra costs as a result of the introduction of import levies on meat, and that in the event of world cereal prices falling in the coming year, which is extremely likely, the raised minimum import prices for cereals will also lead to higher prices for bread and flour-based products than would have been the case?

Mr. Prior: Most of that question was hypothetical. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to put unnecessary fear into housewives that prices will go up.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper showing the effect of the policy of encouraging competition in the stabilisation of food prices during the last nine months.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on 8th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 59.]

Mr. Hamilton: That answer is not surprising, because the White Paper would be a blank sheet. Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Grocer's estimate that since the General Election there have been 5,856 price increases? If he is not prepared to publish a White Paper on price reductions at a stroke, will he consider publishing the items to which the Grocer refers?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper showing the difference between the rise in the retail prices of groceries during the six years when the Opposition were in Government, when they went up astronomically, and the price increases since


then, which have largely been due to the Opposition's mismanagement?

Mr. Prior: As Labour hon. Members know, and hate to be reminded, in their five years in office prices went up by 25 per cent., whereas in the previous five years they went up by 11 per cent.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider holding a specific investigation into increases in food prices as a result of decimalisation, in the light of information received since 15th February.

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The changeover to decimal currency went smoothly.

Mr. Eadie: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how he reached that conclusion? For example, how does he canvass the housewife, who, according to quite substantial Press reports, doubts his statement very much?

Mr. Prior: It happens that I think I am better informed about public opinion than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the change-over to decimalisation in so far as it affected the greengrocery trade, which was a specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and not answered by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Prior: There were reports in the Financial Times article, which I think is the one the hon. Gentleman saw, that greengrocers had tended to even up rather than to pull down. This I regret, but I think that on the whole decimalisation went extremely smoothly and was a great credit to customers and shopkeepers alike.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Whilst I agree with my right hon. Friend, does he not agree that it could have gone still more smoothly if traders had made more use of the new half pence and had made use of the old sixpence?

Mr. Prior: I think that that is perfectly true.

Pig Herd

Mr. Deakins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is

his estimate of the effect of the recent Price Review determination for pigs upon the size of the pig herd.

Mr. Prior: The immediate effect of the increase in the guaranteed price should be broadly to maintain profitability when production is stabilised within the middle band of the flexible guarantee. I cannot speculate on the longer-term trend in the size of the pig herd, but, if necessary, the Government will review the operation of the flexible guarantee arrangements later on in the year to encourage the desired level of production.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact that the February determination under the flexible guarantee arrangement showed the pig herd, or estimated marketings for the year ahead, to be at the top of the mid-band of 14·7 million, and is it not, therefore, almost certain that in May there will he a cut under the mid-band, unless the Government take emergency action, which will take away from pig producers with one hand what the Government gave them with the other at the Price Review?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows very well how the middle band operates; it is designed to keep pig numbers broadly in line with the increase in consumption. I cannot speculate too far ahead, but it seems to me that there is a fairly strong chance that there will be a cut in May.

Food Products (Marketing)

Mr. Kinsey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to combat the damaging effects which direct sales to large retail distributors are having on the wholesale marketing system for food products.

Mr. Prior: I have no reason to think that efficient wholesalers cannot compete successfully.

Mr. Kinsey: I share my right hon. Friend's opinion that competition is the housewife's champion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members should ask the "Co-op"—but is he not aware that the position of the small man is being adversely affected by higher prices now as against the bulk large-scale purchaser, and it is important to keep the small man


in business since this is ultimately in the interest of the housewife's purse?

Mr. Prior: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The cash-and-carry warehouses and voluntary symbol groups can play a part in helping the small independent grocer to obtain the advantages of the large multiple store.

Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that confectioners, greengrocers and grocers, ordinary shopkeepers, complain bitterly that they were taken for a ride by wholesalers over decimalisation and that they are still being filched and cheated because they have to face the angry housewife over increased charges imposed on them by wholesalers? Will he do something about that to help the ordinary shopkeeper?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman should already have heard, if he was here, his hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) say that he thought that decimalisation had gone satisfactorily.

Mr. Molloy: The Minister is answering me now, not my hon. Friend.

Fowl Pest (Vaccinated Flocks)

Mr. Farr: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will compensate the owners of vaccinated flocks which succumb to fowl pest.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. It is not the Government's responsibility to compensate farmers for losses from disease except where we require animals or birds to be slaughtered.

Mr. Farr: Does not my hon. Friend think that the introduction of that policy would be a useful encouragement to flock-owners to vaccinate?

Mr. Stodart: No, Sir. The policy of compensation was followed and was a failure up to 1963, when there were over 2,000 outbreaks in a year. The policy of vaccination caused the outbreaks to fall to fewer than 40, and vaccination is clearly the best policy.

SOUTH AMERICA

Mr. John Hannam: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to make an official visit to South America.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Hannam: While I appreciate the pressures and commitments which prevent my right hon. Friend from visiting this rapidly developing and friendly trading area, does he agree that there is every indication of a strong and growing desire by this trading area, worth more than £4,000 million a year, for better, more fruitful and expanding trade relationships with this country? Will he consider the implementation of such measures as bilateral trade agreements and investment guarantees?

The Prime Minister: Many firms in this country have long had well-established trading relations with particular countries in Latin America. We regard it as a very important market. As to bilateral trading agreements, this country operates under the multilateral arrangements of the G.A.T.T. Investment guarantees are being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement about them fairly soon.

Mr. Lipton: If the right hon. Gentleman went to the Argentine or some other South American country, could not he pick up one or two useful hints about how to get rid of unpopular colleagues?

The Prime Minister: The Argentine would appear to have applied the procedure in reverse, which is not one that I wish to accept.

TRADE UNION CONFERENCES

Mr. Sillars: asked the Prime Minister how many invitations he has received to address trade union annual conferences on matters for which he is responsible.

The Prime Minister: I have accepted an invitation to address the annual conference of the National and Local Government Officers Association next June.

Mr. Sillars: When the Prime Minister addresses trade union annual conferences, will he take the trouble to tell them what claim he has to have a mandate for


Clauses 35 to 40 of the Industrial Relations Bill, which impose fictional agreements upon trade unions, especially as "Fair Deal at Work" denied that the Conservatives would do this?

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to addressing the conference. It will give me the opportunity to deal with the point the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it will also give the conference the opportunity of seriously considering the Bill which is before Parliament.

EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister how many representations have been made to him since 1st January regarding the level of unemployment.

The Prime Minister: I have discussed the state of the economy, including the level of unemployment, with a variety of organisations and individuals, and I have found widespread concern about the consequences for employment of inflationary wage demands.

Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has taken his Government only nine months to produce the worst unemployment figures since the war, and that by the end of July thousands of school-leavers will be added to the growing army of the unemployed? When he referred in the election campaign to building one society, did he really mean that he was giving equal opportunity to all men to stand in a dole queue?

The Prime Minister: What I am aware of, and what those with whom I have discussed the matter are fully aware of, is the rising wage-cost inflation which we inherited from the Labour Government. The fact that the escalation in these claims has now been halted, and that there are signs of de-escalation, can be the basis—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see inflation conquered in this country. When inflation is conquered there will be the basis for a sound expansion.

Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the growing problem of unemployment in the South-East region, particularly in North-East

Kent, where, although it is an area of relatively satisfactory economic conditions, there has been continuing and growing unemployment which the Department of Trade and Industry has not yet succeeded in solving?

The Prime Minister: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to solve the particular problem of North-East Kent. I am well aware of the problems, many of which have arisen through the rationalisation of the larger companies in this country in an endeavour to maintain their efficiency and retain their export markets. What we must do is to encourage industry to go into such areas to take up the place which has been made for them by the rationalisation of existing companies.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Leaving on one side the right hon. Gentleman's polemical utterances about alibis and scapegoats, has he received any representations or information about what I am sure he will agree is a very serious development, the growth of white-collar unemployment, for example, amongst sale staffs, executive staffs, design staffs, and so on? Perhaps he will look into this and tell the House later whether he is satisfied that the machinery of the Department of Employment is adequate to deal with the placing of those in the white-collar grades who are unemployed, not least those who are over 45 or 50.

The Prime Minister: To the best of my knowledge, I have not had any representations on this aspect of the problem, but I will make sure about that. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look further into the question. Particular cases may arise at present as a result of the problems of Rolls-Royce. Here the Department of Employment has already made special arrangements for trying to find employment for design staffs and others concerned with the film.

PRESIDENT NIXON (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to hold official discussions with President Nixon.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for a further meeting with President Nixon.

Mr. Dalyell: What did the British Government, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, say to the American President about the invasion of Laos?

The Prime Minister: To the American President we have said nothing. What we have said to the Soviet Foreign Minister is that we would welcome joint action by the two co-chairmen for the removal of foreign forces from the whole area.

Mr. Blaker: On a different point, my right hon. Friend will recall that when he saw President Nixon he discussed the question of the sale of advanced computers by this country to the Soviet Union. Has he any progress to report on this matter, which has been outstanding for some time?

The Prime Minister: I cannot make a final statement about it today. The information I have is that the American Administration has given further consideration to the problem. I hope that we shall have a decision fairly shortly.

TRADES UNION CONGRESS

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when the Trades Union Congress last sought a meeting with him on matters of mutual concern.

The Prime Minister: I was glad to have the opportunity of discussing the economic situation with the T.U.C. on 11th March, and I look forward to further exchanges of view.

Mr. Marten: Now that the T.U.C. has condemned the strikes against the Industrial Relations Bill, would it not be logical for it to condemn the victimisation of those who did not strike against the Bill?

The Prime Minister: The condemnation was made at the Congress at Croydon. We would all hope that no action will be taken against members of trade unions who did not take part in a political strike.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will take cognisance of the point of view expressed to him not only by the T.U.C. but by the C.B.I., that he should reflate

the economy, thereby giving the people of Scotland in particular some hope about this Government?

The Prime Minister: As both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. saw, my colleagues and I took very careful note of all the representations made to us, especially on the questions of investment, unemployment and inflation. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take careful note of them all in forming his Budget proposals.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence is a member of the House of Commons, in view of the expenditure for which his Department is responsible.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence is well able to answer in this House on all defence matters, including defence expenditure.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is an insult to the elected Members of the House of Commons that the head of the biggest spending Department in Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is the biggest at present, I think, spending £2,500 million. It is one of the biggest, in any case—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the Prime Minister who is being asked the question.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unfair that the Secretary of State should be in the other place, where he cannot be challenged by the elected representatives of the people? It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Secretary of State has an underling in this House prepared to answer here.

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Until the Ministry of Defence was unified, it was customary for one of the Service Ministers to be in the other place, and he headed a major spending Department. As we have a bicameral system, I see no objection to a senior Minister being in the other place, and, of course, the


House of Commons retains complete control over expenditure.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who take a rather more constructive view of defence expenditure than does the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are thoroughly happy with the present arrangement?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend is thoroughly happy, even if he does give the impression at the moment of receding over the horizon.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Prime Minister if he will increase the number of Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a desperate need to have a new Minister in the Department to do that which the present incumbents are not prepared to do—namely, to ensure that local authorities comply with the law, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which they are consistently refusing to do?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained to the House several times that the local authorities have been given very comprehensive guidance on what is required under the Act, that he proposes to give them the reasonable time that is required, because of the reorganisation of the whole of the social services now going on in local government, in order to implement it, and that he will make the necessary Order at the appropriate time.

CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (RESPONSIBILITIES)

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is the Minister responsible for the negotiations for British entry into the European Communities, and deals with certain wider European questions. He also controls the management of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Mr. Carter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that it should not be the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come here with a set of faits accompli, the results of negotiations in Brussels, but that he should make far greater efforts to discover the true feelings of the British people towards the negotiations before going on to Brussels?

The Prime Minister: The House has had many opportunities of debating the question of the European arrangements and negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a statement each time he returns from Brussels and, in addition, answers Questions in the usual way in the House. There is no question of a fait accompli of any kind. No decision can be taken until Parliament decides on the proposed arrangements if and when they come to be placed before the House.

OXFORD (VISIT)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Spearing—Question Q10.

Mr. Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not ask his supplementary question before he has asked the Question.

Mr. Spearing: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, Question Q10.

Mr. Spearing: asked the Prime Minister when he plans to make an official visit to Oxford.

The Prime Minister: On 23rd June, when the university has invited me to receive an honorary degree.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but—

Sir G. Nabarro: Congratulate him.

Mr. Spearing: —does he recall that during the election campaign he called for an intellectually honest approach to politics, at the same time mentioning certain prices in the shopping basket? Will he please reconcile these two points—

Hon. Members: Reading.

Mr. Heffer: Very good reading it is, too.

Mr. Spearing: —with the Order, made in paragraph 49 of the Agricultural Price Review, to put new taxes on imported meat?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, even when post hoc, would appear to be somewhat far from Oxford. The whole question of agricultural policy was put before the electorate fully and in detail at the General Election.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short business statement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that it would be appropriate for the House to debate Northern Ireland at a suitable time and he invited me to enter discussions through the usual channels about it. Those discussions led to the conclusion that the most appropriate and convenient time would be following the four-day debate on the Budget statement. I therefore wish to inform the House that on Tuesday, 6th April, there will be a debate on Northern

Ireland arising on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking the first opportunity to report to it the results of the discussions through the usual channels, which were unusually difficult but not disagreed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we would of course have liked an earlier debate, as he and perhaps the House would have done, but that with the incidence of the Budget timetable, which none of us wants to disrupt unless something really serious were to occur, it was thought desirable not to have an immediate debate before the dust has settled in Belfast and the policy of the new Government has become clearer than it possibly can become in the course of the next two or three days? Although this means a long wait for many hon. Members, I think it is probably right to wait until that date.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the point of view he has expressed. We, too, would have liked an earlier debate—next week if that had been possible—but, as he has said, it would have been extremely difficult. I hope the House will feel that the result is the best that can be achieved in the circumstances.

Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we, too, would have preferred a somewhat earlier debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are we?"]—but we appreciate the difficulties—[An HON. MEMBER: "Paper tigers."]—and accept the fact that 6th April is the best date?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for what he has said.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[5TH ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended, further considered.

New Clause 11

TRANSFER FROM PROVISIONAL REGISTER AND CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES

5
(1) In the case of each organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar shall consider whether it appears to him to be eligible for registration as a trade union or as an employers' association in accordance with section 63 or section 67 of this Act; and if, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of its entry in the provisional register, the registrar is satisfied that it is so eligible, he shall cancel that entry and register the organisation under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, as the case may be, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.


10
(2) If, in the case of any organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar is not satisfied as mentioned in the preceding subsection before the end of the period specified in that subsection, he shall serve on the organisation a notice stating that fact; and, where the registrar has served such a notice, he shall cancel the entry of the organisation in the provisional register unless, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of service of that notice, he is satisfied—


15
(a) that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, and


20
(b) that the organisation is taking all necessary steps for the purpose of so altering its rules.


(3) Where the registrar refrains from cancelling the entry of an organisation in the provisional register by reason that he is satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section, he shall serve on the organisation a notice allowing it such further period as he may consider appropriate for enabling it to make the requisite alterations in its rules.


25
(4) If, before the end of a further period allowed to an organisation under subsection (3) of this section, the organisation does not make an application for registration under section 64 or section 68 of this Act, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register at the end of that period; but, where the organisation does make such an application before the end of that period, then—


30
(a) if in consequence of that application the organisation is registered under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register as soon as the organisation is so registered, or


35
(b) in any other case, the registrar shall cancel that entry as soon as he has given his decision on the application and the time for appealing to the Industrial Court against that decision has expired without any such appeal having been brought or, on any such appeal, his decision has been upheld by the Court.


(5) No fee shall be payable for the registration of an organisation in pursuance of an application made in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First film.

3.33 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 12 and Government Amendments No. 70 and 71.

The Solicitor-General: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
The object of the two new Clauses is to simplify the procedure for the transfer of unions and employers' associations that are already registered on to the new register so as to ensure the continuity of their position and of their entitlement to rights which flow from registration, but at the same time to make plain that at any stage in the process a union may seek and secure cancellation of its registration.
Old Clause 75, which is being repealed, is replaced by new Clause 11. Old Clause 75 effected, as it stood, an automatic cancellation of provisional registration if the organisation made no application within three months for registration to be continued. That provision would have been somewhat inconclusive. It would have depended on lapse of intention and not upon a conscious decision by an organisation. It made no provision for an organisation to secure cancellation specifically of its registration.
Before I explain the effect of the two new Clauses, read together with the provisions of Clause 74, I should first draw the House's attention to the fact that Amendment No. 70 makes an alteration in Clause 74 so as to extend the period of one month to six months. If one considers the position as it will be and as it will work if the House accepts the Amendments, it will be as follows. As a result of Clause 74, all those organisations which are already registered under the existing legislation will be transferred to the provisional register. In addition, any other organisation which applies for registration within six months of the passing of the Bill will be admitted to the provisional register upon application under Clause 74.
Clause 75 will be replaced by new Clause 11, which will operate in the following way. During the next six months after an organisation has been entered on the provisional register, either automatically or as the result of application, the Registrar will consider the eligibility of that organisation for full registration, and he will apply the tests laid down in Clause 57 and Clause 63 with reference to trade unions and the corresponding tests and references to an employers' organisation. He will only at that point be considering eligibility —the question of whether or not the organisation qualifies as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will have to be satisfied, therefore, as to whether or not the organisation is based substantially on Clause 57—namely, the regulation of relations between employers and workers—whether it is independent and whether it is autonomous within the provisions of Clause 63.
The Registrar will not at that point be concerned with the rules but only with deciding whether or not the organisation

qualifies and is eligible for registration, either as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will be doing that during the six months after the first entry in the provisional register. For him to undertake that consideration, in the great majority of cases no application will be necessary. He already has the information to enable him to undertake that consideration because it follows from the existing register that he will be able, by scrutiny of the rules and constitution of the existing organisation, in the vast majority of cases quickly to satisfy himself that the organisation is eligible either as a trade union or as an employers' association.
Therefore, under new Clause 11, the transfer visualised—to the full register —will take place in most cases without difficulty. Only a comparatively small number of doubtful cases will remain behind on the provisional register. As a result of the repeal of Clause 75, there will be no question of the provisional registration lapsing after a period of three months further has elapsed. What will happen is that, under subsection (1) of new Clause 11, the Registrar will tell the organisation whether in fact it is eligible for transfer to the full register or not. If it is eligible, if it qualifies as a trade union or employers' association, the Registrar will so certify, and it will be transferred.
Under subsection (2) of new Clause 11, if the Registrar forms the view that the organisation does not on the face of it qualify, perhaps because it is not independent, perhaps because its objects are not such as to qualify it under one or other of the headings, he will tell the organisation and give it six months within which to satisfy him as to its basic eligibility. If during that time the Registrar is satisfied that the organisation is taking all the necessary steps to alter its rules, again by reference to eligibility, he is enabled under subsection (3) to give it additional time to make the necessary changes.
Under subsection (4), if during the additional time given for the necessary changes to be made, the organisation does not make any application, does not take advantage of the time given to convert provisional registration to full registration, the provisional registration lapses. On the other hand, if the organisation applies, if it takes advantage of the additional time granted, the Registrar ends the


provisional registration and the organisation is given full registration.
If he decides at that point that he cannot register it because the organisation is still not eligible, he does not cancel the registration until the time has run for the organisation to appeal against his adverse decision. The effect of that is to give the Registrar the opportunity to consider during the first six months whether the organisation qualifies for transfer to the full register by reference to his information. This gives organisations time to consider their position and ample time to decide whether any changes need to be made simply to meet these eligibility qualifications, time for the Registrar to consider how the organisations stand, time for them to make what further changes may be necessary.
Another effect is that non-registration, which is clearly an important decision for an organisation to take if it is already registered, would involve a conscious decision. It is plainly right that that kind of decision should not be taken lightly.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would rules which are debarred under the Bill be dealt with by the Registrar before or after provisional registration? At what stage would a union be required to alter any rules which were not in accordance with the Bill? If after provisional registration, how long would the Registrar give a union to alter such rules as it might be necessary to alter to comply with the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it is important to have the distinction clear. We are here concerned with whether an organisation is eligible for registration. In order to be eligible, it has to satisfy the Registrar only that it is an organisation the objects of which include the regulation of relations between workers and employers, under Clause 57, that it is an independent organisation, and autonomous, under Clause 63. We are not here concerned with the extent to which its rules comply with Clause 61.
An organisation now registered under the 1871 and subsequent Acts as a result of Clause 74 would move automatically on to the provisional register. Any

organisation not so registered may apply within six months of the passing of the Bill for inclusion on the provisional register. In order to achieve that, it has to claim merely that it is a trade union or employers' association, or show that it is registered under the existing legislation. The Registrar then has six months in which, by reference to what he already knows about it, to decide whether it qualifies as eligible for registration as a trade union or employers' association, and he merely asks himself whether it has the right objects, whether it is independent, and whether it is autonomous. If he is satisfied, it is transferred to the main register.
He has an opportunity at that point to give the organisation a chance to amend its rules merely to qualify for eligibility. For example, it may appear from its rules, although it is not so in practice, that it is not independent; it may appear from its rules that it derives benefits from some employer, and that would destroy its independence. But if that is not borne out in reality, the Registrar would give it time to amend its rules so as to qualify as an independent workers' organisation. It is only with that kind of rule that we are here concerned. Thereafter, when it is on the register under Clause 71, the Registrar will undertake an examination of the rules in much greater depth in order to determine whether they are consistent with the guiding principles of Clause 61. Under Clause 71, he may give notice to the organisation drawing attention to defects and giving it time to remedy those defects.

3.45 p.m.

There are three distinct stages: first, provisional registration is automatic; secondly, there is transfer to the full register providing that the organisation is plainly an independent trade union, or plainly an employers' association; thirdly, there is the process of analysing the rules to see whether they are in line with the provisions of Clause 61.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I follow that very clearly, for it deals with the union which accepts the situation and wants to comply with registration. For that union the Registrar takes these steps. Where in this process would a union contract out?

The Solicitor-General: I was coming to that next. I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of an automatic enrolling on inescapable terms of any union which is registered. This is the function of new Clause 12. That makes it plain, as it was not plain from the original Bill, that at any time the Registrar may cancel entry of an organisation in either the provisional or the full register.
The organisation may at any point, if it is now registered, for example, and would be transferred by Clause 74 to the provisional register and onwards, request the Registrar to cancel it, or the Registrar may cancel it if it ceases for some reason to exist, if is wound up, for instance.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Is it the situation that unions which say that they will not register have to deregister themselves, have to take an actual initiative in the matter?

The Solicitor-General: That is the basic change. Organisations which have been registered for perhaps up to 100 years are carried through by this means, first, on the satisfaction of eligibility, and, at a later stage, if the rules are in line with the guiding principles of the Bill. But at any point an organisation has power under new Clause 12 to apply for deregistration so that an organisation may "resign" in that way. The Government believe that it is right that it should be in this form, that there should be no question of restricting the right of an organisation to apply for deregistration, but that it should be regarded as a conscious, important act taken after consideration.
This is a provision to make plainer what happens. The intention of the policy was always set out in Clause 74—that provisional registration followed from registration under the 1871 Act. The change is that a decision to withdraw, instead of being as a result of Clause 75 as it stood, a failure to respond, now requires an organisation to take a decision, but it is a decision which the organisation is entirely free to take, as we believe is right, under new Clause 12.

Mr. Alex Eadie: The response of the trade union movement to the proposition which the hon. and learned

Gentleman has put is that the Government have made a political rather than a legal decision. The trade union movement has a certain attitude towards the question of registration. The Government's decisison has nothing to do with legality, as the hon. and learned Gentleman makes out.

The Solicitor-General: This is not a decision prompted by what may or may not have taken place in discussions last week in considering the Bill. It was clear that the Bill made insufficient provision for the right of an organisation to cancel registration. It was also clear, on the question of timing under Clauses 74 and 75, that a whole series of decisions would have had to be taken within a very few months. We are making plain that the organisation registered now which qualifies for substantial benefits under the legislation remains so qualified, and it must, because it is right that it should, take a conscious decision, which it can take entirely freely, whether to withdraw its registration. That seems to be the right emphasis and right balance to achieve.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the union's decision to be taken in any particular way? Is it to be a general executive decision taken in accordance with its rules? Or can the general secretary take the decision? If so, what is meant by the words
evidenced in such manner as the Registrar may direct"?

The Solicitor-General: A union takes and has power to take decisions in accordance with its rules. Different unions have different rules. Decisions will be taken in accordance with them. The Bill makes no attempt to alter the powers and obligations of a union, its officers and executive, under its existing rules, and provided the union takes a decision in accordance with its rules the legislation will not affect it.
The provision to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) refers, namely, the requirement on the Registrar to cancel.
at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
is the subject of Amendment (aaaaaa) and is not intended to restrict the union's power to operate under its constitution.
The proposed provisions are very close in form to those contained in Section 8 of the 1876 Act, which provided for a union applying for deregistration if it wished to do so and relates to the extent to which the Registrar must be satisfied by evidence about the decisions taken by the organisation. In other words, he could require a proper minute of the executive council or a properly certified decision signed by a union officer—something to enable him to be satisfied that the union have taken a decision in accordance with its rules. The provision is not intended to give the Registrar power to direct the way in which the decision should be made, as some comment in the Press would appear to indicate. The words
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
are a reproduction of the corresponding Section in the 1876 Act, save that that Act says
evidenced in such manner as the registrar shall direct from time to time".
But there is no difference, and no difference is intended. There is no trap or snare or anything of that sort. The union can and must take a decision about registration or about cancelling registration in accordance with its rules.

Mr. Orme: Is the Solicitor-General saying that the Registrar could object only if he felt that the rules had not been carried out correctly?

The Solicitor-General: Yes. He would he entitled to satisfy himself that the request of the organisation was valid and that there was no reason why he should challenge it. He would merely need to be satisfied that the decision was made at the organisation's request, "evidenced in such manner" as carried conviction. But if someone produced on behalf of a powerful union a piece of scrap paper with a note on it saying "Unauthenticated", the Registrar would not regard that as being evidenced in such manner as he might direct. The organisation would have to comply with its rules and, as with any other decision of importance, no doubt the decision could, in accordance with the rules, be followed by other members of the organisation through the courts if they wished to do so. There is no intention to restrict or limit the power beyond that.

Mr. Harold Walker: The Solicitor-General insists that the union must take the deregistration decision in accordance with its rules. It seems to me on a hasty perusal of my union's rule book that a change of rule would be required for that purpose and the rules of the union provide that the rules can be changed only every fifth year. The next year in which the rules revision conference of the A.E.F. meets is 1975. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the A.E.F. will not have the chance to deregister until 1975?

The Solicitor-General: That is not the intention.

Mr. Walker: Is that the effect?

The Solicitor-General: Clause 71(5), which is related to enabling a union to comply with directions of the Registrar in other respects, gives a union power to alter its rules notwithstanding any restriction on the frequency with which a rules revision conference may take place. It is not the intention of the new Clause to impose a random or arbitrary restriction of that kind. If that is a widely recurring problem, no doubt it can be considered. The intention is that the organisation should be able to make a request for cancellation, and the Registrar's power is confined to satisfying himself that it is truly the decision of the organisation and not merely a random comment by someone without authority to make it.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: There is a great deal of suspicion throughout the trade union movement that the new Clause has been designed so as to allow the Government in the next 12 months to insist that a ballot be carried out which would permit the union to contract out. That is the view of many trade unionists why the provision is worded in the curious way to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Is that in the Government's mind? Would the Government like to see a trade union take a ballot of its members before a decision to contract out of registration is taken?

The Solicitor-General: The law is not designed or intended to have that effect. The Government do not intend it to have that effect. The words
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct


are a repetition of Section 6 of the 1871 Act relating to the way in which the Registrar must be satisfied. Whether within its rules a union should ballot its members on a decision of this importance is something which the union would decide in accordance with its rules. Many people might think that for a decision of this importance it would be no bad thing for the union to be sure that it was reflecting the wishes of its membership. But no provision in the Bill nor in the new Clause has the effect of securing that. It is left to the organisation to comply with its rules. The hon. Gentleman's suspicion is entirely without foundation.

Mr. Atkinson: If the Solicitor-General and the Government were able to advise trade unions on this point, would their advice be that they should conduct a ballot of members before contracting out of registration?

4.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am not in a position to advise any given organisation. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advise his own organisation. It has been emphasised time and time again that registration under the Bill is a means whereby a workers' organisation registered as a trade union qualifies for access to the new agencies set up under the Bill, qualifies for the immunity preserved for registered trade unions by Clause 85, and qualifies for limitation on awards of compensation against it. The Government think that it is right that any organisation now registered and any organisation which applies within six months of the passing of the Act should have no impediments placed in its way for it, on behalf of its members, to acquire those benefits and rights. That is the object of Clause 74.
Beyond that, if an organisation were to decide, as it becomes free to do so under new Clause 12, that it would with its eyes open cast away that position, the organisation may well feel that its members ought to have their opinions canvassed and that they ought to have the matter fully explained to them before it took that action. However, that is a matter for the organisaion and for its membership and it is not something which the legislation seeks to define or restrict in any way.

Mr. Iremonger: is a very important point which is essential to the operation of the Bill when enacted. If a union deregisters without having sounded the views of its members and if in fact a majority of its members wish to belong to a registered trade union, presumably their option would be to form a union themselves and register that.

The Solicitor-General: There are a whole range of options which might arise. All those are matters which no doubt an organisation would bear in mind before reaching its decision as to what it did or did not do under new Clauses 11 and 12. The provisions here contained provide a clear choice and enable organisations to decide for themselves what their standing should be without depriving any organisation now registered of the advantages which will follow from its previous registration under the 1871 Act. It is on that basis that I commend the new Clauses to the House.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Clause will replace Clause 75. It is being discussed in association with Government Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Government Amendment No. 70 would replace "one month" by "six months" in Clause 74.
Like all the other parts of the Bill, to understand what is involved it is unfortunately essential continuously to go from one Clause to another. It is almost impossible to follow the cross-references in the Bill. I do not know how it will be possible for the average intelligent shop steward to understand the full ramifications of the Bill in view of the great number of cross-references which occur in it from beginning to end. I cannot understand how this can be considered seriously to improve industrial relations.
The Clause places all existing registered trade unions on the provisional register and they will be transferred automatically to the premanent register, providing they are acceptable under the terms outlined by the Solicitor-General.
The Solicitor-General said—it is important to note this carefully—that a union's registration would not lapse; it would have to take a conscious decision to come off the register. A little later the hon. and learned Gentleman said that de-registration will involve a conscious decision. This is the reverse of the


previous proposal, which was that after three months trade unions would automatically be deregistered. In this case they will have to decide that they wish to deregister.
There is much more in this than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. The Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State constantly come forward with the apparently reasonable proposition that the objective is to help trade unions in their endeavours. This is what they are constantly trying to put across to the country. The first intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the T.U.C. and trade unions affiliated to it. Second, they intend to try to divide the traditional white collar unions from the blue collar unions. It is no good their trying to dress it up, because that is the intention of the Clause, and I will explain why.

Mr. Iremonger: rose—

Mr. Heffer: Normally I would give way to hon. Members who carry some weight in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman carries no weight whatsoever in this matter. Therefore I will not give way. There are hon. Gentlemen who have sat throughout the debates on the Bill and who, whether we agree with them or not, at least have a contribution to make; and I would give way to them.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. I am not, I hope, hypersensitive or touchy, but the hon. Gentleman has been just a little less than entirely courteous to me and it might be fitting if he would give way for a moment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Mr. Iremonger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heffer: No, not now. I might give way in a few minutes' time.
I repeat that the Government's objectives are twofold: first, to embarrass the T.U.C. and the unions affiliated to it, and, second, to endeavour to divide the traditional white collar unions from the manual workers' unions. Despite the Government's efforts, I am afraid that their motives cannot be regarded as simon-pure. Their tactics are not to assist and accommodate the trade unions.

On the contrary, they are designed to sow discord in the trade union movement.
I admit freely that there is a difference in tactics towards registration in the trade union movement, and that difference was expressed at last week's special Congress. There was a sizeable minority at that Congress—I say "sizeable"; in fact it was almost a majority—which wanted the T.U.C. to instruct its affiliates not to register, while the majority urged that the affiliated unions
… shall be strongly advised not to become registered.
The resolution passed at the Congress agreed that
Before any union decides to apply to be entered on the provisional register, or to take any steps to remain on the provisional register, or thereafter to seek full registration, it shall inform the General Council of its reasons for doing so, and give the General Council the opportunity to express a view.
It is essential for the Government to read not only the headlines in the newspapers, not only the columnists in the Sunday Press, most of whom I understand were briefed by the right hon. Gentleman or by members of his Department. It is also important for them to read the small print in the resolution carried at the special Congress. That points out clearly that the entire body agreed in that resolution that all the trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. should be advised not to register and, if they decided to register, at least to discuss the matter with the General Council, which could express a view about it.
I said just now that attempts were being made by the Government to divide one section of the trade union movement from the other—

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps this is a convenient moment for the hon. Gentleman to give way. I wanted to ask him about his use of the word "embarrassing"—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) wish to make a comment?

Mr. John Fraser: Get on with it.

Mr. Iremonger: I am sure that if I am not getting on with it to your satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me


without assistance from the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was discourteous enough to suggest that I had a slight interest in this matter. Perhaps I might remind him that I introduced a Bill on precisely the same lines as the Government's proposals on 30th July, 1957. I have been concerned with these matters for some time.
I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that the Government's proposals were embarrassing to the trade union movement. Surely the embarrassment involved in having to make a difficult decision about which there are conflicting interests is just the sort of embarrassment that any democratically-elected body has to put up with from time to time.

Mr. Heffer: That intervention proves how unwise it is to give way to an hon. Member on the benches opposite. Such interventions contribute absolutely nothing. I was aware that the hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill in this House. Indeed, I think that he introduced one later than 1957, since I remember having the pleasure of voting against it.
I repeat that whereas the Solicitor-General again said today that the Government were not prompted by any attitude towards the T.U.C., clearly this new Clause is prompted by just such an attitude. The Government knew that there were certain differences amongst unions in the T.U.C. on the subject of registration. They also knew that an attempt was to be made to take a decision that the affiliates of the T.U.C. should not register as a whole. Clearly the Government decided that if they could sow the seeds of discord between one section of the trade union movement and another they would do it. Obviously right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept that argument, but that is the real situation. That is why this Clause has been introduced. It is no good the Government trying to suggest that that is not so. If it was not the reason, why did they introduce it at all? We have heard no serious argument from the Solicitor-General to convince us that the Clause was essential, that it would help the trade union movement, and so on. Clearly it was

intended to sow discord in the ranks of the trade union movement.
We on this side of the House and the trade union movement as a whole are opposed to the concept of registration. Our reasons are well known, and they are clearly outlined again in new Clause 11. A trade union must satisfy Clause 63, and subsection (2) clearly precludes the T.U.C. from being a registered union unless all its affiliated constituents are registered. It is interesting to note that when that is contrasted with Clause 67, under which employers have to register. no such stringent condition applies.

Mr. David Mitchell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about Clause 63(2) not entitling the T.U.C. to become a registered trade union, will he explain what activity the T.U.C. might wish to carry on which it would not be able to carry on under the Bill as it now stands? As I understand it, the T.U.C. itself has never been a trade union in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman now uses the expression.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: My point is that, under the Bill, there are certain activities about which the T.U.C. could find itself in difficulty if it were not a registered union.

Mr. Tom King: Such as?

Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to go through all the Clauses? I draw his attention to Clauses 85, 86 and 87. There are so many. It is impossible for me to outline them all. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. There is a whole series of unfair industrial practices in which, quite unwittingly, the T.U.C. might become involved.
Clearly, this is intended again to put pressure on the whole trade union movement in one form or another to accept registration.
I say clearly, because this brings out the point which I made earlier, that the intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the Trades Union Congress. Some unions may decide, under pressure, merely to exist as trade unions, to register. In my opinion, most will not register. But this could again develop tensions within the T.U.C. That, in my opinion, is precisely what the new Clause is intended to do.
There has been growth in the white-collar unions. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the fact that the white-collar unions are becoming allied to the blue-collar unions. In fact, the white-collar unions have joined the T.U.C. and are now part of that set-up. They were not in the past. It is that which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like and are afraid will develop in future.

Mr. Tom King: Why not?

Mr. Heffer: It is clear why not. It is because in the past certain of these organisations have tended to be the bastions of Conservative thinking. That is now crumbling. Because it is crumbling right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to try to solve this problem by attempting to split off the white-collar unions from the blue-collar unons. That is the intention behind the new Clause. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite coming to the House with the purest of motives and not telling us the real facts behind the new Clause. In my opinion, the new Clause is designed to weaken that alliance.
I repeat, it is interesting that under Clause 67 the employers, as federated organisations, do not have the same stringent conditions applied to them as the T.U.C. has under Clause 63. There are other objectives to registration which have been discussed many times in this House.
I accept that the Government have joined forces with the Opposition to eliminate from Clause 64(4,b) the words,
and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration".
The Government have accepted this proposal. I think that the Secretary of State has put his name at the head of an Amendment put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The terminology used was that there had been a meeting of minds on this issue. We accept that on this minor issue there has been a meeting of minds. We are grateful for this. However, at the risk of sounding churlish, it is by no means enough, because whether that Amendment has been accepted or not all the other facets of registration continue.
The trades unions are being offered concurrently the carrot and the stick to register. They are getting these two things at the same time whether they like it or not. Under new Clause 11 the unions will still have their rules vetted. The right hon. Gentleman spelt that out when he said that there were three stages. In the third stage we still come back to the situation that the rules of the unions will have to be vetted. Subsection (2,a) clearly states
that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration",
and Clause 64 will still lay down:
Any such application shall be made in such form and manner as the registrar may require.
Despite the meeting of minds, as it were, on the Amendment to Clause 64(4,b), the powers given to the Registrar will continue to be very wide.
We are saying that because the new Clause replaces a previous Clause but retains the principle of registration, on that basis alone we would oppose it. But, in addition, because it is designed to weaken, divide and split the trade union movement on the basis or registration, we feel that it is particularly mischievous. On that basis my hon. Friends would not, of course, give the new Clause a Second Reading.

Mr. Iremonger: There was not a single argument against it.

Mr. Tom King: I echo the cry which I heard from my right. As in so many of the debates on the Bill, one finds on the Order Paper what seems a perfectly reasonable Government proposition. One therefore approaches the Chamber with a sense of pleasant anticipation to know what terrifying flaws and sinister bogeys will be produced by the Opposition to oppose what might appear to the impartial observer as a sensible provision.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was unable to find any pretext for new Clauses 11 and 12, except that they were sinister devices to obstruct or embarrass the workings of the T.U.C.
I think I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to how these new Clauses arose. It would be generally agreed that when the Bill first appeared, and on full consideration in Committee, many hon. Members on this side of the House were


not happy about the arrangements regarding the provisional register, the timings and difficulties which could arise. These could raise far more problems than were necessary. I do not know what representations were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I assure them that there was considerable pressure from my hon. Friends and myself to improve the method. I congratulate my right hon. Friend that he has recognised that this method could be and has been improved.
No one can seriously suggest, despite the efforts made by the hon. Member for Walton, that this arrangement deprives anybody of their rights or alters the situation in any major way. I thought that hon. Members opposite were fully in favour of contracting out, and this would seem to carry that principle a stage further.
The only point made by the hon. Member for Walton which I could establish and which seems quite without substance was that it was an attempt to divide the white-and the blue-collar unions. This may have been the outcome of the Congress at Croydon. However, to suggest that this is the intention of these reasonable new Clauses seems quite ludicrous.
I made a sedentary intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Walton, for which I should perhaps apologise. He explained that the white-collar unions had been regarded as the former bastions of Conservative thought. I increasingly recognise that there are changes in the pattern of life and perhaps some of the more traditional halls of Conservatism are not as established as they were. I am also increasingly convinced that some of the blue-collar unions and their members are more traditional bastions of Conservatism than their leadership might indicate. I commend the hon. Gentleman to bear that point more in mind. He will be surprised, as the polls have shown, how widespread is that support. Sometimes the polls, short of the ballot box, are the only way of discovering how people think on issues of this kind. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Industrial Relations Bill in this context. I do not pay so much attention to the polls, and I refuse to be accused of selectivity in that respect for there are good reasons to justify that thought.
We then move on to the really "sinister" clause which has been found by the Opposition in this quite terrifying suggestion, when cancellation is attempted by a union,
at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct".
My right hon. and learned Friend surely nailed that suspicion. It is not only established form in the previous Act. Surely all hon. Members recognise that, because of the issues which are at stake here, the Registrar would be grossly irresponsible and it would be quite unfair to them if he did not have an established method of receiving any resignations from the register.

4.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) in an earlier debate mentioned the financial implications of non-registration. This is important. The Registrar might be in a very difficult situation, between the Inland Revenue and a union, over payment or reclaiming of tax, unless he had very clear records to show whether a union had decided to deregister.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Is there not possibly another reason—that after the Bill has been in operation for a time registration may come to be regarded as a tremendous privilege, so that any union which lost this privilege without desiring to do so would deeply resent it? Thus, it is surely desirable that the Registrar should be utterly satisfied that this was the desire of the union.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the matter even clearer. It is surely clear that it would be impossible not to have some clear and defined method under which a decision of such magnitude was taken. Undoubtedly, this decision could give rise to great feelings within a union, and it would need to be established and recorded without peradventure.
But my hon. and learned Friend has gone further. The hon. Member for Walton made great play with the Croydon conference. I do not know how selective was the presentation of the speeches in "24 hours", and I do not know how many hon. Members saw its fairly long programme on the Croydon conference and the discussion afterwards. But I felt great encouragement following the discussion, which gave the impression


that the unions are increasingly beginning to recognise the benefits of registration. Mr. Jack Jones's comments were very guarded. He made it clear that he was not saying that his union would necessarily seek to deregister.
I felt from this interview and discussion that there was a very sensible and reasonable change of attitude at work, that people were realising that the terrors of the Bill were not quite as awful as they had imagined, and that they were beginning to recognise, as certain commentators are, that the Bill will become law and that the question now is how to live with it. We shall no doubt hear more of that on Third Reading—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Would the hon. Gentleman not therefore concede that the new Clause might enliven the attitude of mind which says that only political strikes can really battle with this, as against those who say that there are other means of questioning the Government's strategy? Might this not swing the balance back to those who say that this is the only formidable way in which the Government can be contested on a matter to which the whole trade union officialdom is fundamentally opposed, whether they register or deregister, contract in or contract out? That has been clearly established.

Mr. King: I totally fail to follow the hon. Member. He has said that the only way in which they can face the situation is by political strikes, that, under new Clause 11, we are talking about registration and the transfer to the provisional register. But new Clause 12 clearly defines the ability to seek cancellation of an entry on the register. There was no suggestion of this from the hon. Member for Walton, who was desperately short of material and who would have jumped at any chance like this of widening the area of debate. The rights of unions are preserved under this. A correct union decision is in no way inhibited. If they wish to be deregistered, they will be able to do so. It is on those grounds—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member has said that he and his hon. Friends are the parents of this new Clause. If there is a substantial difference between contracting in and contracting out, which appears to he the difference envisaged

by the new Clause, would he tell us what it is? So far he has not done so. and neither has the Solicitor-General.

Mr. King: The hon. Member has done something which many hon. Members have to face, but this is the first time that it has happened to me. He interrupted the last half sentence of my peroration.
The differences simply are that there is the risk of default and the problem of fixing time limits between going on to the provisional register and going on to the permanent register. This provision will make it now the responsibility of the Registrar, and a union, by failure to act at any one time, will not miss out or be at a disadvantage from which it may be difficult to recover. The unions can continue with the least disturbance.
The objective which I support, and which I know many of my hon. Friends support, throughout the Bill is that there should be the minimum disturbance to existing good industrial relations and the existing conduct of good unions. It is for that reason that I support the new Clauses.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: We have consistently opposed registration, not because in itself it is not a good thing—unions have been registered under the 1871 Act—but because this is registration which carries with it the right of a Government agency to write the rules of a union. Because of this the unions have opposed registration. Originally the Bill stipulated that unions would not be automatically registered but would have to apply for registration. On that basis, the Trades Union Congress decided—this was endorsed at Croydon—to recommend strongly to their affiliated member unions not to register under the Act.
But this provision attempts to change that position. Automatically a union will be regarded as having registered unless it makes a conscious effort to secure de-registration. The situation has changed, therefore, because the Government have been afraid to face the fact that the unions would decide in large numbers not to register. So now they have turned face about and are saying, "You are registered whether you like it or not, and if you disagree you must make a conscious application before we will consider it".
The loose wording of the new Clause may allow situations in which unions cannot deregister because the Registrar has been given very wide powers under new Clause 12(1)(a) to decide what the terms should be for deregistration. He could say that he was not satisfied that an application represented the view of the union membership. It says that he must be provided with evidence which would lead him to believe that the request of the organisation is a bona fide request. So he could say to a union, for example, "You are bound to seek a ballot of your membership". He could say, "I will disregard any application from the national executive of a union" or, "In future there must be a 50 per cent. vote or a two-thirds per cent. vote". He could say almost anything. I therefore cannot understand why, the Registrar is given such wide powers under the new Clause to demand the type of evidence that would convince him that a union should be deregistered.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to make bogeys where they do not exist. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that the wording of the new Clause is almost identical, as far as evidence is concerned, to what was in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, which was passed under a Labour Government. The Building Societies Act, 1962, also refers to the registration of a society being cancelled at the society's request, if that is thought fit, and to the production of evidence in such manner as the central office may direct. The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, uses precisely the same phraseology. This is, therefore, well established phraseology, and it is well known that it does not carry the implications which the hon. Gentleman is trying to place on it.

Mr. Fletcher: I am aware that it follows the wording of the 1871 Act, but under that Measure when an organisation applied for registration it was able to get benefits from being registered; from, for example, the income tax point of view if it provided benevolent grants and other payments. Under these provisions, however, there will be disadvantages for such a union. For example, its rules will, in essence, be written by

the Registrar. [Interruption.] He must agree the union's rules before it can be registered. The situation under this Measure compared with the past will be entirely different.

Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of this wording was included in "In Place of Strife", which was introduced by his right hon. Friend less than four years ago? Why does he accuse us of making the Registrar rewrite the unions' rules when these provisions are broadly in line with proposals introduced by the Labour Party?

Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly reminding us of "In Place of Strife" and that so-called affinity, which I do not see, between that and this Bill. My views on "In Place of Strife" should be known to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I never supported it.
Under this legislation the I.R.C. is given specific instructions on how to interpret the Bill. The Registrar is given no such instructions. For example, on the cooling-off period the High Court judge is told exactly the circumstances in which he can decide whether the Secretary of State should be allowed to take certain action and whether a strike is a danger to health, national defence or the economy. No such instructions are given to the Registrar.
It would have been more honest for the Solicitor-General—he admitted that he would like to see a 50 per cent. membership vote taken on whether a union should register—to have stipulated these instructions in the new Clause. Without them, the Registrar will be able to make his own decisions on whether a union should register and, if so, whether it should be allowed to get out of registration. This will make it difficult for unions to become deregistered, for the Registrar might insist on keeping them registered.

4.45 p.m.

If unions decide on non-co-operation, they could agree to be registered—they would take a negative attitude because registration is automatic—but then not implement the Bill. For example, they could remain registered but when asked by the Registrar to provide copies of their rules for approval refuse to provide


them. The initiative for deregistration would then have to come from the Registrar, who would be obliged to say, "This union can no longer remain on the register because it is not implementing the Bill by refusing to submit a copy of its rules, which I wish to vet."

The Government could find themselves in a lot of trouble over this and perhaps they are being too clever by half by insisting on the stipulation in the new Clause. By washing their hands of the decision whether a union should be registered, they may be putting themselves in very hot water. Indeed, the situation is likely to be worse under these provisions than under the Bill as originally drafted because the original draft stipulated that unions must make individual applications for reregistration. The new Clause will put even further obstacles in the way of the Bill being implemented and is likely to increase non-co-operation among unions.

Mr. Adam Butler: I will correct only a few of the many errors which were perpetrated by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) in his list of suppositions. The first is about the Bill as previously drafted, particularly in respect of entry on to the provisional register by trade unions.
Under Clause 74 unions will be entered on to the provisional register regardless, and it is under Clause 75, which we are repealling with the new Clause, that registration will automatically lapse after three months. It is about this point that I particularly wish to speak.
My hon. and learned Friend's words about the need for a conscious decision to de-register is a vital part of this whole question of registration and deregistration. This is vital in the interests of democracy in the trade union movement and in the interests of individual union members. It is not reasonable for a decision which puts a union so much at risk to be taken unconsciously or unknown to its members.
The Bill is complex and is certainly not fully understood throughout the trade union movement. A decision which affects, amongst other things, the funds of the unions which, if not registered, would be at risk in certain circumstances, and particularly which affects the access to the new legal agencies, must not be

taken unconsciously. Although it is not included in the Bill, I should consider favourably a requirement that there should be a ballot amongst members before deregistration took place, to ensure that members at least knew that their benefits and privileges under registration were being taken away.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said—if I heard him correctly —that he did not want a ballot before a decision to deregister was taken. If he did not say that, he certainly implied it. That is typical, I regret, of some of the leadership of the trade union movement. They are not genuinely prepared to take into account what their members feel. We on this side of the House want to protect individual members from that attitude. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in supporting the new Clause.

Mr. Orme: I intervene in the debate on new Clauses 11 and 12 because the whole concept of new Clause 12 is highly political. Why did the T.U.C. make this number one of the seven points just debated at the special Congress and recommend strongly against registration? Why was it the issue of the two vital battles which took place at the T.U.C., one on the Clause and one on the subject of further industrial action, if it is not important? Of course it is important. It is important because the Government consciously are taking away fundamental rights which have existed in the trade union movement since the original register was set up in 1871. It is a direct interference in the running and conduct of independent trade unions. It is no good the Solicitor-General using honeyed words to try to explain away this situation.
It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said that pressure had come from the Tory back benches not to give the trade unions more freedom but to reverse the existing procedure. As new Clauses 11 and 12 make very clear, unions now have to contract out as opposed to contracting in.

Mr. Tom King: In what way do these allegedly harsh, repressive new Clauses 11 and 12 in any way diminish the rights or opportunities of trade unions?

Mr. Orme: That is the whole purpose of the registration. This is the first step


of the Bill and where it all begins, in the form of registration.

Mr. King: They can deregister.

Mr. Orme: The Bill makes it very difficult. It actually financially penalises unions which deregister. It takes away rights established since the 1871 Act, and people talk about it not affecting the trade unions because they have the right to deregister.
This is one of the most conscious political actions that the Government are taking. The Solicitor-General knows that it is political. It is aimed at the centre of the trade union movement. The trade unions are so bitterly opposed to registration because flowing from registration are not only the financial implications but the rights of the Registrar to interfere in the conduct and running of unions. Unions can no longer be free and independent but, like Spanish or Czech trade unions, they will come under the corporate State approach.
The trade union movement in this country may be open to criticism. We on this side of the House have never defended it as being perfect, because no organisation in this country is perfect. But we believe that trade unions are the bastions of democracy, and because of that we and the trade unions believe that registration and all that flows from it—the right to interfere and to adjudicate over rules, and the rules that will be imposed—is wrong. When asked to give examples, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked, "Do you want me to name the 150 Clauses? Just look at Clauses 85, 86 and 87"—on unfair industrial practices. All this flows from the issue of registration.

Mr. Tom King: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to avoid answering my question, but he has now rather gone on to a Third Reading speech. His objections to the Bill apply irrespective of new Clauses 11 and 12. My question was as to how new Clauses 11 and 12 make the Bill in any way more penal on the trade unions.

Mr. Orme: I thought that I had answered that point without the remarks that the hon. Gentleman makes about my speech, which I should not deign to

make about that of the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had answered the point by what I said about contracting in and out. It is a tightening up of the situation. It is apparent. The hon. Gentleman must tell us of the endeavours of himself and his hon. Friends about the pressures on the subject of registration. There is no doubt that when the Government saw that the trade union movement could see a way of getting out of co-operating on the Bill, obviously the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State decided, therefore, to make it even more difficult to circumscribe the Bill by bringing in these Clauses and giving the Registrar the right, in new Clause 12(1), to peruse the decision of a union and, as the Solicitor-General said, the right, if necessary, to instruct that a ballot be taken.
Who is this individual, the Registrar? Who is he that has a right to take this sort of action with independent organisations?

Mr. Adam Butler: In the Bill there is no case that the Registrar could require a ballot to be taken in this case for registration or deregistration. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the trade unions as being the bastions of democracy. If that is so, would he favour a ballot to find out what the members of his union, in a democratic society, would like to do in the case of deregistration?

Mr. Orme: In my union, if the members want to take such a decision, they would take it on any issue. I am objecting to their being forced by the Bill and the Government to do things to which they are completely opposed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not written in words in the Bill that a ballot ought to be taken; neither does it say that a ballot shall not be taken. That is our point.
In this important debate, I have tried to make the point about the T.U.C. very clear. Neither the Solicitor-General nor the Secretary of State has taken this issue on board. They do not appreciate that the decisions taken at Croydon were not a crumbling away of the opposition but that the T.U.C., in reaching the seven decisions, have said that it will mean non-co-operation and have strongly recommended non-registration. These are the issues that the T.U.C.


have had to decide. This body, which has always abided by the law has recommended that the trade unions should have nothing to do with the register or with the Bill. That is the issue, and that is why we are so totally opposed to new Clauses 11 and 12.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have listened with growing interest to what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the other speakers have said. I am glad that the hon. Member for Salford, West recognises that trade unions are not perfect. I am only sorry that he went on to oppose any effort to ensure the raising of the standards of the minority to the best which already exists. In the week after we have seen the political strikes, where an endeavour was made to intimidate and to bring outside pressures to bear against the democratic decision of this House, I do not know how we can defend the trade unions as the bastion of democracy.

Mr. Orme: The industrial strikes led by my union last Thursday and on 1st March—which I supported—were industrial action against an Industrial Relations Bill that will take away unions' rights. The trade union movement was defending democracy and its rights. It was not asking for anything, it was defending.

Mr. Mitchell: On the strength of that, I suppose it could be said that those who drink and are opposed to legislation about drinking and driving have a right to go on strike to pressurise Parliament to accept their point of view. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the whole basis of democracy is that decisions are taken in this House and not through pressure from the streets.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that he opposed registration because it enabled a Government agency to write the rules of a trade union. Those were his words, and there was no disclaimer from his hon. Friends. Having sat, as he has, through the debates on the Bill, he must know that what he says is blatantly untrue and a gross distortion of the contents of the Bill. He knows perfectly well that a trade union writes its own rules and the only purpose of registration is to ensure

that those rules comply with the standards laid down in the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman said is a gross distortion and I hope he realises the danger of making such speeches which go uncontradicted. He makes speeches to his local trade union, his constituents and his trades council on the same lines, and they all swallow it, hook, line and sinker—

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I would not dream of attacking him without giving him the right to reply.

Mr. Fletcher: Clause 65 stipulates what must be incorporated into the rules of a union before it can be registered. The Registrar, therefore, has the power to say to unions, "Your rules must conform with Clause 61." As a consequence of this, the rules of the unions will not be decided democratically by the members of the unions but by the Registrar, and they will have to conform with what the Registrar considers is the correct interpretation of the Bill.

Mr. Mitchell: I have listened to that with considerable interest. In order to comply with the requirements of Clause 65, one would be concerned with organisations of employers. With great respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is in error.
As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman is twisting the facts when he says that a Government agency will write the rules of a trade union. All that will happen is that the rules of a trade union will have to come up to the standards laid down in the Bill. The union writes its own rules. The standards with which the rules will have to conform are the standards which the majority of our best trade unions already observe in such matters as outside auditors, a proper right of appeal and a fair hearing for a member who is disciplined, and so on.
We have consistently heard this gross distortion of fact. If it is allowed to go unanswered it will cause considerable damage in the country and, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it will rebound on his own head when, in about six months' time, members of a trade union realise that the gross exaggerations


of Labour Members of Parliament have no substance in fact.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: I must apologise, I mentioned Clause 65 when I should have referred to Clause 61, which states:
The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding prnciples in the conduct of every organisation of workers …
The so-called guiding principles set down by the Government have to be written into the rules of every union applying for registration. As a consequence, the rules of a union will be decided by the Registrar, not in accordance with the democratic wishes of the members of the union, but in accordance with the Bill and what the Government consider to be fair and unfair industrial practices. It is irrefutable that the Registrar will, in effect, be writing the rules of the union.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not see how anybody could logically come to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman came to in his interruption. Clause 61 contains a series of reasonable and innocuous requirements. The first one that catches my eye is that there shall be a secret ballot. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a secret ballot would be objectionable to trade unions in the election of their officers? Is he suggesting that a person who is disciplined should not have notice in writing of the charges which are laid against him? Is he suggesting that that person should not be afforded a full and fair hearing? The Bill sets down the standards which the best of our trade unions now enjoy, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no intention, and no power within the Bill, for the Registrar to write the rules; he merely has to see that the organisation comes up to the standards set down.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not for the first time, made an extraordinary speech. He said that he opposed the whole concept of registration and then, in the next breath, he complained that one of the hardest, toughest and most unfair parts of the Bill was that the T.U.C. could not register. How he can back both those horses in the same speech, I find difficult to understand. What does the T.U.C. want to do which registration would enable it to do and which the

Bill prevents it from doing? When I asked this of the hon. Gentleman in an intervention, he was kind enough to say that I had only to look at Clauses 85 and 86. I have looked at Clauses 85 and 86. He wants the T.U.C. to be able, under Clause 85, to induce a breach of contract to which it is not party, without notice, over the head of the trade union that is party to it. Does the hon. Gentleman really want the T.U.C.—I refer here to Clause 85 (1,b)—to go over the head of a constituent union? That is the only justification which one can draw from his reference to Clause 85.
The hon. Gentleman charged the Government with endeavouring to divide the trade union movement and to sow dissension. No attempt by the Government to divide or to sow dissension among trade unions could be nearly as effective as the undemocratic decision to call political strikes last week and the action subsequently taken to victimise those who carried on working, and did not support those strikes.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is well known in the House for his sick jokes, and he returned to them today, though not in their original form when he used to talk about the executioner patting the patient on the head and saying, "Do not worry, it will soon be over, and it is quite painless". It is indicative of his whole approach of the Bill, and I take some of his remarks today as being in the same sick vein.

Mr. David Mitchell: This is a case of mistaken identity. There are two Members with my name, and I have never perpetrated that joke, sick or otherwise. I never heard it until now.

Mr. Atkinson: It was a variation. I was referring to the theme and basis of the hon. Gentleman's humour, which one might call a sort of "phenobarbed" humour. I shall not go into detail, but that is the spirit of his approach to the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman forgets how much of the Bill is now superfluous. The T.U.C. having taken its decision about registration, Clauses 57 to 84 do not now have the meaning which they once had. We ought to recognise the seriousness of the decision taken by the T.U.C. Moreover, the Labour Party, before long,


when it is back in Government, will repeal the Act, if it ever becomes an Act. It is, therefore, temporary legislation, with a good measure of superfluous matter in Clauses 57 to 84. That is the true situation now.
In one sense, it is profitable for me that the Government have introduced these two new Clauses, particularly new Clause No. 12, for I once predicted that the Government would bring in something like this because they would want to introduce compulsory ballots for trade unionists prior to a decision to deregister a union. I still stick by that, and I am prepared again to have a small wager with the hon. Member for Basingstoke about what will be the Registrar's attitude towards a compulsory ballot in such circumstances.
I come to the question raised by several hon. Members about whether a ballot is a good thing or not, or whether we should support a ballot to decide whether a union should deregister, if that be the word. The trade unions are adamant in their attitude to the whole business of registration. This is why the vote was so overwhelming against any form of registration, why the unions generally decided as they did, and why my own union, in particular, took that line.

5.15 p.m.

The A.E.U. rule book, Rule 14, paragraph 13, lays down:
Whatever is agreed upon at the Rules Revision Meeting shall be binding upon all members.
Because of the Bill, the Registrar will be compelled to alter that rule at the outset. The Rule will then have to read:
Whatever is required at the Rules Revision Meeting, or is required by the Registrar, shall be binding upon all members".
That rule will be the first casualty, and this is why my union will never register, for it will be a condition of registration that that rule be altered in that way.

My union's attitude is conditioned by the fact that a Conservative Government, or representatives of the employers, will, through the medium of registration and the Registrar, redesign the rule book and make the altered rules binding upon all members.

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Since the hon. Gentleman so pointedly says that this will be done by

a Conservative Government or employers' representatives, may I remind him that in the original proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) there was a requirement that unions should register? Obviously, this is not a political act by a Conservative Government, for the Labour Government intended the same, out of sheer necessity.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: Tried to do it, but we stopped it.

Mr. Atkinson: This is not the time to analyse the differences between the present Bill and the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", which, as the hon. Lady knows, was not a Bill. It was not proposed legislation.

Mr. Orme: Nevertheless, we voted against it.

Mr. Atkinson: The question of registration in these terms was not included in my right hon. Friend's Bill, and the whole purpose here is totally different. I do not want to go into the argument about consent politics, but the origin of what the hon. Lady is talking about is the concept of consent politics on this side of the House. There are great arguments about that, but that is not the point now. We are discussing the proposals of a Conservative Government and their need now to introduce compulsion in registration.
The change to which I have referred would be only one of many changes which the Registrar would demand in the rules of the A.E.U., the Engineering Section of the A.U.E.W. That change alone would never be agreed by the membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, so that is the first answer on the question whether we support the idea of ballots.
It is not suggested that there should be a ballot about whether such a change in the rules should be made. I do not hear hon. Members saying that the democratic process should be so extended that the Registrar would have no powers of compulsion and the matter should be left entirely to a ballot of members. They say that the Registrar should have compulsory powers, backed by the law, to force union members to do certain things. Yet they say that we should have a ballot on other things. They want to extend


democracy in certain directions but not in others. In other words, the Registrar should have compulsory powers, but the members should not have the right to decide what sort of rule changes are to be demanded by him.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman said just now that under no circumstances would his union's membership approve of registration. Can he say on what authority, on what consultation with his members, he can tell us with such assurance that members of his union would never approve of registration? I strongly suspect—I shall be grateful if he can disprove this—that the maority of the members of his union would wish it to be registered.

Mr. Atkinson: That is a fair question. I could make an equally bald statement that I was pretty sure that members of the A.E.U. would not by ballot agree to a £2 a week reduction in their wages. Conservative hon. Members could rightly ask what grounds I had for that assertion, but I have a curious sort of class instinct that makes me feel that a ballot of members on that matter would result in an overwhelming vote against such a reduction. Incidentally, that is the policy the Government are proposing at present, but that is beside the point.

Mr. Orme: That is what it is all about.

Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. We are entitled to make the assumption that the members would reach that kind of conclusion. That answers the whole question of the ballot.
The other thing that the Registrar will not have is Rule 13 in the A.E.U. rule book, dealing with the function of shop stewards. This, too, is what the Bill is about: its purpose is to change the relationship between shop stewards and the executives of unions. When we examine Clause 79, and particularly Schedule 3, from which the Registrar will derive his instructions, we can understand clearly why he will want to change large sections of existing rule books. Rule 13 is a very important rule, which the Registrar cannot possibly accept. He would therefore demand that it be changed.
Subsequent Clauses give detailed reasons why the Registrar cannot accept such rules dealing with the functions of

shop stewards. Under Clause 79 he is compelled to issue a public warning to a trade union for persistent breaches of trade unions rules and to lay a complaint before the Industrial Court. If he is to follow that procedure, certain parts of trade unions rules must be altered, because part of the purpose of this legislation is to demand that executives discipline shop stewards who attempt to defend their right at the point where they meet the employer. If the purpose is to disarm the shop stewards' movement, as I believe, then all the rules of any trade union that determine the functions of shop stewards must be radically changed so that the Registrar can carry out his functions.
Therefore, it can be seen that one of the reasons why trade unions refuse to register is to maintain their rule books intact. The membership of the engineering section of the A.U.E.W. would never agree to the elimination of Rule 13, or to its drastic change, which would rob the shop steward of an elementary right to defend the members he represents against initiatives of employers that are detrimental to his members' interests. Therefore, there is a total resistance to registration because of the very nature of the Bill. That is why we argue against the proposed new Clauses 11 and 12, and 12 in particular.
Some of us accurately predicted quite a long time ago not only that trade unions would not register but also that the Government would want to do something about the conditions under which the Registrar would allow a union to contract out of registration. The reason is that there is a curious wording in the proposed Clause. The Government could say that it is rather curious because it is 100 years old. We are celebrating this week, I think, the centenary of the first registration. As part of the centenary celebrations, we are opposing the Clause. The words are used in quite the opposite way to the original intention 100 years ago. Subsection (1)(a) of new Clause 12 says that the Registrar may cancel an entry
at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct,…
The provision can be put in that way only for the simple reason that the Registrar must have powers to discover whether the request to contract out is


official and whether it represents the will of the membership. The Government may say that that is necessary, but it is a curious state of affairs that if one of our members in Tottenham just drops him a note on a postcard to say that 1½ million members want to contract out of registration, the Registrar would take that seriously and initiate a number of moves to test the validity of that bit of paper. Of course, he would be concerned only about a request coming from a union on the required notepaper and signed by the person responsible for that union, so there is superflous wording here. What does the Solicitor-General mean?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an official letter, when there has been no ballot, would necessarily represent the views of the members? That is what the Registrar will have to take into account. There have been occasions, such as the recent one-day strikes, when no ballot was taken and it was not certain that the decision represented the will of the members.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in those assumptions. First, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the engineering industry and the leadership given by the A.U.E.W., the decision to take strike action on the two days resulted from a vote by the union's national committee, a rank-and-file policy-making body elected by the members, with 65 in favour and four against.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It was not a ballot.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not in the rules.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman does not know the rules.

Mr. Atkinson: The union has a national committee whose responsibility it is to decide policy. It decided by 65 to four to have the stoppage on two days, and therefore the executive was instructed to take that action.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was challenged by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who said that I did not know the rules. It says firmly in

the rule book that in such a case if the national executive wants to test the members on any important issue, which includes a strike, but which could also include registration or non-registration under the Bill, it shall take a ballot of members unless there is no time to do so. There was plenty of time on the strikes, and there will be plenty of time on registration.

Mr. Harold Walker: Rule 14, paragraph 15, on page 57 of the rule book, says:
The National Committee"—
which is the national policy-making body composed of lay members, not the national executive—
shall be empowered to call or terminate a general strike when in their opinion time would not allow the members to be balloted".

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is what I said.

Mr. Atkinson: There is no time on this occasion.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is plenty of time on registration.

Mr. Atkinson: There is a democratic procedure for electing a rules revision committee, which is an extension of the national committee, and a democratic, rank-and-file appeals committee to which appeals can be submitted on such matters. That is the democratic structure of the union.
I do not know whether you are equipped with a rule book, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one of the things that is so enjoyable about these debates is that we have the most interesting discussions on A.U.E.W. rules. Perhaps we could add an A.U.E.W. rule book to your collection of books on procedure and your other reference books, to clear up some of the difficulties experienced by Conservative hon. Members.
I did not want to lengthen the debate, but I wanted to make clear why we attach such importance to the whole question of registration and why the T.U.C. decided to advise its affiliated unions not to register. The reason is that we look upon the requirement as a direct interference with certain democratic rights. Moreover, there is something repulsive about having a Government who are not sympathetic to the aims of


the trade union movement re-writing its rules.
The whole question is about the balance of bargaining power in industry. It is based upon the complaint of employers that that balance has shifted in favour of the trade unions and that it is now necessary to restrain the shop stewards' movement in particular and the whole of the trade union movement in general. To do that, the massive apparatus of registration is to be set up, designed solely to change the rules, which up until now it has been the democratic right of the unions to decide.

5.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It has become fashionable for people arguing the same case as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), including leaders of trade unions and the T.U.C., to say that everything would be all right in the Bill if only the Government would go back to Donovan. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that Donovan expressly recommended that status as a trade union should be confined to a body which registered as a trade union. Donovan made two alternative recommendations for compelling such registration—either by the withdrawal of privileges under the 1906 Act or, as the minority suggested, by the imposition of cash penalties. One of the consequences of registration was that a union should have rules dealing with a number of things. In addition, paragraph 654. referring to shop stewards, said that the rules should prescribe

"(i) their term of office; and
(ii) the authority charged with, and the manner of, issue and withdrawal of credentials."
Paragraph 656 said:
The requirements as to rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive, and will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar, than in the past.
It provided for appeal to the industrial board in the event of arguments between unions and the Registrar as to whether the rules complied with the standards. How can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the adoption of that kind of provision for registration as a matter of course, with supervision by the Registrar of the rules of trade unions, including those rules dealing with the credentials of shop

stewards, is a monstrous and horrendous intrusion invented by the present Government?

Mr. Atkinson: For precisely the reason that the Bill constitutes an over all threat to the trade unions. Donovan was not talking about registration for the purpose of making compulsory some of the terms of the Government's legislation. I have tried to restrain myself and not to be provoked into political comment, but it is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to reiterate the parrot cry we heard so often before 18th June—that, if given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out Labour Party policy. I take it that what he means by all these references to Labour Party or Labour Government documents is that, given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out the policy advocated by the Labour Government previously. I take it that there is complete acceptance of that fact—that we have complete agreement on it.
In the same way, it is equally dishonest to talk about the recommendations of Donovan when, at the time, Donovan was not talking about the need to require unions to register in order to implement the terms of this Bill. Registration has become so obnoxious in the form in which it is required because of the terms of the Bill, because of its class nature.

Mr. Dan Jones: The Government want Donovan only in parts.

Mr. Atkinson: Precisely. They are using arguments put by Donovan and his recommendations in support of proposals which are in fact entirely different from those which were recommended by Donovan. The then Minister of Labour, when setting up the Donovan Commission, was not talking about the sort of Draconian ideas proposed in the Bill. This is why trade unions have set themselves against registration and, come hell or high water, no trade union will register under these terms. New Clause 12 is such that it ensures, if it ensures nothing else, that the largest of our trade unions will never register.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he had won some money on the new Clause earlier in the proceedings. I wonder whether it is within the rules of order for me to offer a wager


to him on the last statement of his peroration. I would say that within 12 months of the date that the registration provisions come into force at least 25 trade unions will have registered. If he wants to think over the sum involved—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What odds?

Mr. Page: Even money?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The Derby has not come yet. I think that we should keep to the terms of the new Clause.

Mr. Page: Perhaps I can try to make a contract with the hon. Member for Tottenham afterwards. He always makes the most forward and straightforward contributions because he is never afraid to let cats out of the bag. To mix my metaphors a litle further, he has introduced a new kind of bogey man. Instead of the "Red under the Bed" we have the "Tory under the desk". The tale goes that, wherever the Registrar goes, he will be followed by "Big Brother" from industry wearing a silk hat and carrying a microscope, and that in this way we are stifling the just activities of the trade unions. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) not interrupt, because it makes my own speech a little difficult? Are you making a point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not made any point.

Mr. Page: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Tottenham said that many trade unions did not want to register and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that registration gave disadvantages. If a trade union feels that it does not want to register and that registration would give disadvantages to it, it can always ask to be removed from the register. It seems to be perfectly straightforward. On the other hand, a trade union which believes that registration is nothing to be afraid of, and gives advantages, has the opportunity to register. All hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), are building up too much of a bogey about registration. I want to quote some words of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). The quotation is not from what she said

eighteen months ago or even nine months ago. It is from 10th February. She said, referring to the Donovan Commission:
It pointed out that there must be rules which deal adequately with the problems of elections and how a ballot is conducted if one is held and which deal adequately with rights of appeal, and so on. No one disputes that that is the end. There is nothing unacceptable in those principles. I, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends, would go further. I do not believe that there is any objection in principle to compulsory registration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 640.]
There we are! The right hon. Lady is the leading spokesman of the Opposition on this Bill. What the Opposition object to is the fact of the unfair industrial practice in connection with registered and unregistered unions.
The hon. Member for Walton said that there was a distinction in the new Clause in favour of the white collar workers. I did not quite follow his argument. But I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that there is a distinction in the new Clause against workers' organisations which wish to register on the special register. As it stands, the new Clause gives an opportunity for trade unions which are at present registered to continue their privileges for a period of six months, and this seems fair, sensible and reasonable. On that register they will be provisionally assumed to have the privileges of registration. Is any time limit to be enforced on the Registrar in accepting or refusing those organisations which wish to appear on the special register? Otherwise, perhaps it would he advantageous if there were a provisional special register as well, so as to get rid of the discrimination against those who wish to appear on the special register because of the privileges given to those on the ordinary register or on the provisional register under new Clauses 11 and 12.

5.45 p m.

The Solicitor-General: Bodies which are qualifying for the special register or may qualify for it are by definition those which have not yet registered under existing legislation, and they are in the same position as other workers' organisations which do not qualify for the special register and which also have not registered. Other workers' organisations have six months within which to apply for inclusion on the provisional register under


Clause 74, and any other organisation has the opportunity of applying for inclusion on the special register. It is true that it has to show that it prima facie fulfils the qualification conditions, but since these are bodies so far outside the scope of registration altogether and are given that period of time within which to apply and in which their registration as a company continues, the provisions seem more or less parallel.

Mr. Page: I will read carefully in HANSARD tomorrow what my hon. and learned Friend said. The argument was used yesterday by hon. Members opposite that unions which register quickly would be in a privileged position as opposed to those which did not register. From that argument, it would seem, for example, that if the National Union of Public Employees were to register immediately, as no doubt it will, quite sensibly, it would then he at an advantage in demanding the privileges of representation of nurses and midwives as opposed to the colleges of those two organisations. However, no doubt this point will already have been thought of by the organisations concerned. I put it into the general argument to produce something new for the House to think about.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) made the statement. "My union will never register". My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) quarrelled with him about the accuracy of his prophecy. I do not know which of them is nearer the truth, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he must surely have found from his own experience in the House that it is unwise to use a word like "never". To use the word "never" is presenting a tremendous hostage to fortune. I heard is used in connection with events in Cyprus many years ago and it was used about events in Africa. In nearly every case, the person who said "never", regretted it later.

Mr. Atkinson: I qualified it. It was not an open-ended use of the word. I said that I expected us to have another Labour Government soon, and that the Labour Party has committed itself to repeal the Bill and therefore it is only a short time that I am talking about.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman may again be going ahead of events. In any

case, I am not sure that he is accurately stating the position of the Opposition. I have not seen any official statement by the Opposition collectively that they will repeal the Bill.

Mr. Heffer: It was said on Second Reading.

Mr. Gower: Nothing has been said about it since then and it was said by individuals and not by the Opposition generally or by their official spokesmen.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others have repeatedly asserted the value of democracy in the trade union movement, and we accept what they say; it is wonderful. At the same time, they express their fear that the Registrar may permit anything so undemocratic as a ballot. Apparently, in their view the democracy of the trade unions cannot possibly survive anything so undemocratic as a ballot.

Mr. Thomas Swain: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not leaving out the National Union of Mineworkers, which has recently conducted a ballot.

Mr. Gower: I am not leaving out anybody. I am merely observing that hon. Members opposite have expressed the sharp fear that registration may introduce a ballot, which is apparently inconsistent with the democratic spirit which pervades the trade union movement.
I am amazed that the Opposition cannot accept that significant benefits are to be obtained from registration. The value of those benefits was underlined yesterday. The Opposition Front Bench pressed for the inclusion of bodies such as the College of Nursing which, so the Opposition said, should participate in these benefits on terms similar to those for what were described as the normal trade unions.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must read the Bill—and it is we who are frequently accused of misrepresenting the Bill. Let him understand very clearly that there are no benefits to be won from registration, but that severe penalties may be incurred for not being registered by unions which for 60 years have enjoyed privileges and immunities in the law of which they are now to be stripped as a consequence of not registering.

Mr. Gower: I venture a prophecy, perhaps not so permanent as that of the hon. Member for Tottenham, that after the enactment of the Bill, more and more unions will recognise the valuable benefits to be obtained from registration.

Mr. Albert Booth: The hon. Member has referred time and again to the benefits to be gained from registration. To help the House, will he state one benefit which a union may obtain by registration and which it does not now possess?

Mr. Gower: There are numerous benefits. I will do what we were invited to do yesterday and refer to the numerous Clauses of the Bill. I clearly do not have time to give details, but there are numerous advantages which unions which register will enjoy.
As a corollary, it would be serious for a union to decide to contract out, as it has been described. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) regretted the change in procedure from failing to contract in to formally contracting out. For any union, the decision not to register, to apply for deregistration, as it has been called, will be a serious matter. That is why it is right and proper that the Clause should enable unions to do so only after careful consideration of the consequences of not being registered. I disagree with the hon. Member for Darlington, for this procedure will enable the decision to be taken only after mature and serious consideration.
What have been called the "penalties" of not registering are not real penalties. It merely happens that unions will have the right to decide, and those which register will have additional advantages. It is therefore appropriate that this should be a decision made with solemnity, and I welcome the change which the new Clause will make.
The hon. Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Salford, West asked who the Registrar would be. He will be a person appointed, as other registrars in similar positions have been appointed —the Registrar of Companies, the Registrar of Friendly Societies and others. All our experience leads us to believe that persons appointed to positions like

these conduct their duties with a great sense of responsibility.
I cannot believe that anyone appointed a registrar under an Act of Parliament would be biassed against any party. It is not conceivable that the Registrar will be biassed in any way against a union or an employers' association. Our history in this respect shows that a registrar in an appointment like this will be deserving and worthy of the confidence of all parties in industry. The change is of great advantage and the fears expressed by the Opposition cannot be substantiated.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): As we are beginning to enter the final stages of this long and in some ways tortuous Report Stage, it is heartening to see quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed the course all the way through, although they have not had to be here, as some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have had to be here, and they are still in good voice. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) always speaks pertinently on these occasions and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) still shows the same enthusiasm in his speeches as on the first day. I disagree with almost every word he says, but I admire his pertinacity.
There was one thing he said this afternoon in which I thought him absolutely right. He implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. Indeed it is, and we make no secret of that.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is taking a curtain call. We have not arrived at that yet. The hon. Gentleman is calling us back to take our farewells of the audience, but that is for tomorrow.

Mr. Smith: We have not seen as much of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) as we have of the hon. Member for Salford, West, but we always welcome him to our proceedings, for he is always guaranteed to give us an entertaining if not particularly relevant speech.
The hon. Member for Salford, West implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. It is. Incidentally, it has always been an objective


of the Government to maintain continuity between the present register and the register to be introduced by the Bill. We believe the new Clause to be a more efficient way to reach the objective. The Government are entitled to have second thoughts and have done so on a number of matters, and we believe the new provision to be advantageous.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is a very suspicious person. He said that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was reasonable and helpful in his manner, but that that manner covered something sinister. He believed that there was more to it than my hon. and learned Friend's mollifying way of explaining these provisions.
I emphasise to the House and anybody else interested in these provisions that we are not trying to embarrass the T.U.C. or the unions by these two new Clauses. We do not seek to be divisive. There is nothing sinister about our proposals. They are perfectly fair.

6.0 p.m.

I could understand the objections of hon. Members opposite to our proposals if registration were to be compulsory or if it were to be made law that unions could not resign if they wished. There is nothing in our proposals along those lines. It is open to any union on the register to contract out if it so wishes.

We are glad that the Trades Union Congress took the more moderate line open to it last week and we hope that common sense will prevail on the question of registration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that there is hope in what happened at the conference last week. I am far more optimistic than is the hon. Member for Tottenham. Alas, because of my duties, I was not able to see either the direct relay or the late night summaries of the conference on television, but I have read the newspaper reports and spoken to people about it. They said that a growing sense of responsibility was shown and that there was hope for the future on the registration procedure. It is encouraging that the T.U.C. leadership at least is showing responsibility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member

for Bridgwater that the free will of the union is in no way inhibited by the new Clause or by registration.

We have always thought, and we still think, that trade unions would be ill advised to boycott the register and to contract out. We think that they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. But we do not intend to deny them the right to make that choice. This is a fundamental matter and they will be able to make their choice about it. If they are foolhardy enough to wish to contract out, that is up to them. We believe that it is very much in their interests that they should be registered.

Mr. James Sillars: Now that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the advantages which he sees in registration, perhaps he would tell us a little about Amendment No. 70 relating to Clause 74 which deals with an organisation not presently registered under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 to 1964 and which provides that within the period of six months it may make an application to be entered on the provisional register. What advantage will there be to a trade union to apply to go on the provisional register?

Mr. Smith: In due course, if the organisation's rules satisfy the Registrar, it will be able to obtain full registration.

Mr. Sillars: Last night, the Secretary of State said that if any organisation wished
to go straight on the permanent register, without having to go through the provisional register, that is open to it under Clause 64 ".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 151.]

Mr. Smith: It can do that if there is no doubt about its qualifications. The point about provisional registration is that if there is a doubt the Registrar will be able to look at the rules of the organisation and advise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) raised the pertinent and important question of the rules. I confirm that the unions will still write their own rules and that they must be up to a reasonable standard. The Registrar will not write the rules.
Most of the organisations entered on the provisional register are likely to be eligible for full registration as trade unions


or employers' associations. They will meet the qualifications without any great difficulty. The hon. Member for Tottenham says that on no account will his union or any other union meet them. I think that he is mistaken. I believe that quite a number of unions will register. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that in due course this will be looked on as a privilege by all the organisations involved and they will become fully fledged members of the register. I can see no difficulty arising concerning registration provided it is wanted by the unions. These provisions are not so arduous that they cannot be met. I should be amazed if any of the major, reputable and well-known unions did not qualify.

Mr. Atkinson: Subsection 1(a) of new Clause No. 12 provides that the Registrar may cancel an entry
at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct".
We accept that the application must be sent on the organisation's notepaper, but what else does the proposal mean? Why is it written in that way if it does not mean taking a ballot of the membership?

Mr. Smith: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained that point to the hon. Gentleman. However, there will be a separate debate on the Amendment.
There is now an automatic transfer from the provisional register to the full register unless there are deficiencies which the Registrar can look into and give assistance on. However, there is provision in the new Clauses for cancellation on the application of the union to the Registrar either from the provisional register or from the main register. If registration is to remain voluntary—and we believe that it is an important principle —organisations must have the right to change their mind about whether they want to be registered.
At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—because it is like a red rag to a bull to him—I should like briefly to go back to the proposals which the Labour Government brought forward with a great flurry of trumpets and which were a do-or-die affair for them. I wish to quote from paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife"—[HON. MEMBERS:

"Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite are thoroughly embarrassed by it and hate being reminded about it. I accept that the hon. Member for Salford, West has always been implacably opposed to registration. At the time that these proposals were produced, the Labour Government had a majority and they would have become law but for the fact that their leadership "chickened out" of the issue.
Paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife" says:
The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period.
That is perfectly right. Further on it says:
Unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters (e.g. admission, discipline, disputes",
and so on. Again, there is no contention about that. But then the paragraph says:
Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board.
There are no financial penalties for non-registration in our proposals. We believe that it is important and in the interests of unions that they should be registered, but we shall not penalise financially those which do not register. The matter is open to them. It is a voluntary scheme. That is why the proposals in our Bill are better than the proposals in "In Place of Strife", and that is why I recommend my hon. Friends to support the two new Clauses.

Mr. Harold Walker: I want to take up the point which is raised again and again about "In Place of Strife" and the former Government's Bill. I said last night, and it is obvious that I was correct in so saying, that every time that the Government get themselves into a debating fix their safe get-out is to fall back on "In Place of Strife" and the Bill which the House did not debate.
It is important that the House should recognise two things. First, "In Place of Strife" was a White Paper and not a Bill. The Bill was radically different, for reasons which we all know; but it was a Bill which was never debated by the House. If the Government would like on a future occasion to allocate time so that we could debate the contents of that Bill, I for one would be absolutely


delighted to make a public comparison between the contents of that Bill and the contents of this Bill.
I want to state very briefly why "In Place of Strife" was very different from the Bill which was subsequently presented to the House. I want to comment on the difference in the registration requirements referred to in "In Place of Strife". The Under-Secretary said that, unlike in "In Place of Strife", there are no penalties in this Bill for unions which refuse to register.
In that case, what is all the fuss about in the trade union world? Why the significance which the Government attach to registration? The Government know full well that it is because of the penalties that arise from the deprivation of unregistered organisations of the immunities and protections provided by the law. These are much more severe than any fines are likely to be. They place much more severe restrictions upon organisations of workers and put them into the hands of the Registrar and into the rôle of the Registrar as provided for in the Bill and in that way are much more onerous than anything which we could have conceived.
Much more important and significant about "In Place of Strife" was the fact that we said, before it was drafted and at every stage in its gestation, that if the T.U.C. were prepared to discuss with the then Government ways and means of tackling the disorder which undoubtedly exists in industrial relations we were prepared to modify our policy.
The Tory Party has never fully acknowledged that. Indeed, I do not think that the Tories understand what happened in the summer of 1969 when the T.U.C. accepted—[Laughter.]—The sneers we are getting from hon. Members opposite only confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said in his opening remarks, namely, that the Government have clearly declared war and are hostile in their attitude to the T.U.C. The sneers we are getting are confirmation of that.
The Tory Party has never acknowledged, and indeed has never understood, what happened in that summer when the T.U.C. accepted a rôle which hitherto had been denied to the T.U.C. and when, for the first time in its history, individual unions surrendered their

autonomy to the T.U.C. so that the T.U.C. could have a more effective rôle in industrial relations.
If the Under-Secretary will talk with his officials at the Department and will look back at the record from June, 1969 to June, 1970, he will see that time and time again the T.U.C.'s disputes committee and Mr. Victor Feather, in particular, intervened in disputes in a way that it could not have done before to bring them to a speedy conclusion. That is something to which we pay tribute, but I am still waiting for many hon. Members opposite and for the Government generally to make the same acknowledgment of the service rendered by Mr. Victor Feather.
One small point which might have been explained but which was not is the contradiction between the non-fee provision, where a union is willy-nilly transferred to the permanent register and the requirement to fork up £25 if it applies to go on to the register. In speaking of a contradiction, I am talking about the contrast between new Clause 11(5) and Clause 64(4).
The Solicitor-General did his usual trick with Donovan. When the Government run out of steam on "In Place of Strife" they like to select a fragment of the Royal Commission's Report which will serve their needs of the moment. The Report is becoming rather like the Bible: anyone can quote it to suit the particular case and needs of the moment.
I draw the Solicitor-General's attention, not to the paragraph which he quoted, but to paragraph 793 which states:
The conditions of registration would be the same as they are at present under existing legislation, modified by such alterations as Parliament hereafter thinks fit to make as a result of this report or for any other reason.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say that that is the exercise that we are going through—proposing the modifications that Parliament thinks fit.
The Commission then went on to give an example:
For example, future conditions might include filing a copy of the union's constitution (unless this is already embodied in the rules) and proof of a fee-paying membership.
There is an enormous gulf between that approach and what is being put to us by the Government.

The Solicitor-General: Will the hon. Gentleman read the next sentence?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I intend to read to the end of the paragraph:
Again, we make recommendations in Chapter XI as to how the requirements of the law in relation to the rules of trade unions might be revised. All the existing provisions of the law would continue to apply to trade unions, including the protective provisions of the Trade Union Act 1871"—
to be abolished by the Government—
the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875"—
to be modified by the Government—
the Trade Disputes Acts 1906"—
to be partly repealed by the Government; then the Act of 1965, which is to be repealed by the Government—
and the Trade Union Act 1913.
All those Statutes would continue in force under the recommendations of the Royal Commission and would continue to apply to all the unions.
I know that the Solicitor-General is bursting to get me to turn back to Chapter XI. I will quote him one or two particular passages from Chapter XI. The Commission said this in paragraph 656:
The Registrar already advises unions informally on the drafting and the re-drafting of rules, and we hope that this beneficial practice will continue. The possibility exists however that this agreement may at times arise between the Registrar and a trade union as to whether its rules comply with the revised requirements of the law. We think that such disagreements should be referred for settlement by the independent review body whose establishment we propose.
The Royal Commission went on to say this in paragraph 658:
We envisage a review body consisting of three members, of whom two would be chosen from a panel of trade unionists…
What a contrast that is to the dictatorial authority and absolute power which is being given to the Registrar under the Government's proposals.
It is a matter for regret that the Solicitor-General persists in his selective quotations from the Report of the Royal Commission and, incidentally, keeps on pretending to the House and the country at large—why he should accuse us of misrepresenting the Bill I do not know—that in this respect the Government are in line with Donovan, when clearly they are not. He suggests that the Govern-

ment are in line with Donovan in withdrawing the present immunities from unregistered bodies, when in fact it was a recommendation of only seven out of the 12 members of the Royal Commission.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that the recommendation for the withdrawal of immunity from unregistered unions was a recommendation of only seven members, implying that for that reason it should be disregarded. Would he, therefore, prefer the alternative recommendation suggested in paragraph 804 of Donovan by the minority of five—
The need for compulsory registration could be met by a provision that the members of the Executive Committee of a body which should, but does not, register as a union should be liable to a penalty for each day of default."?
Which of the two Donovan recommendations does the hon. Gentleman prefer; and is it not the case that other hon. Gentlemen who are arguing in favour of Donovan reject it as soon as they are brought face to face with it?

Mr. Walker: This is not the choice before the House, anyhow. The Solicitor-General is suggesting that we have to choose between the two alternatives presented by the divided Royal Commission. This is not the case. I wish that it were, because what it would imply is that we should be debating here a Bill based firmly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I wish that we were. I wish that the issue before us was whether we accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But that is not what the Solicitor-General is putting to us in his Bill. His Bill is generally inconsistent with the Donovan Report, and, in major respects, it flagrantly contradicts it. No wonder the hon. and learned Gentleman no longer maintains, as he did earlier, that his Bill is based on Donovan.
In the course of the debate, I noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite wriggled and tried to get off the hook on which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and one or two others put them. Very fairly, my hon. Friends asked, why the change from Clause 75 to new Clauses 11 and 12? The best explanations that we had was that some hon. Members on the back benches opposite were sufficiently privileged to have the ear of their right


hon. Friend and hon. and learned Friend, and apparently had persuaded them. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Government apparently treat us as a rubber stamp and their own back benchers as a sounding board.
In any event, this does not hold water. The only explanation which carries any weight is that put from this side of the House, that the only thing of significance that has taken place between the presentation of the Bill and the introduction of the new Clauses is that the T.U.C. has shown its hand clearly. It is obvious that the Government are playing a deadly game of poker with the T.U.C., trying to match it card for card. The stakes at the end of the day are the future of the trade unions and our industrial relations. It seems to me, as has been said from this side of the House, that the Government are trying deliberately to frustrate the declared policy of the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said that the Government have made a calculated political decision. In my view, it is one which indicates their attitude towards the T.U.C. They are determined to thwart and outwit the T.U.C. whenever they get the opportunity.
Another element in the approach of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to this problem was exposed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who drifts in. chips in his sixpenn'orth, and drifts out again. I make no apology for saying that in the hon. Gentleman's absence. Once he has made his criticisms, it is difficult to catch him in the House subsequently. He appeared clearly to relish the incentive that he thought that the new Clause provided for the formation of breakaway unions. That seemed to him to be one consequence of the new Clause. It is the fear of the growth of splinter organisations which has been a powerful factor in influencing certain of the white collar unions to demur at a policy of defying registration.
The central theme of the speeches from this side of the House has been that registration is the keystone of the Government's policy. We have had that proudly proclaimed from the Treasury Bench—

Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. But it is not the keystone; it is one of the keystones of the Bill.

Mr. Walker: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think that my hon. Friends have it right when they say that registration is the keystone of this whole edifice. It is clearly seen as such by the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said that the T.U.C.'s opposition to the Bill focussed on this central point of registration. What is undeniable is that, if registration is seen as crucial to the Government's approach to the trade unions and industrial relations, then anything which contributes towards that structure of registration must be seen in its context. If, therefore, we are opposed to registration in its entirety, equally we must be opposed to it in its parts. This is one of the parts. It is yet another coercion to get the trade unions within the sheep pen of registration in order to make them subordinate and submissive to the Government's general policies. For that reason above all, we are opposed to the new Clauses and the Amendments.
Perhaps I might refer again to this point about the requirements that a union has to satisfy to be eligible for registration. Time and time again, the Solicitor-General has said that the Registrar has only to satisfy himself that an organisation has the right objects. Let me draw his attention to the rule book of my own union, the A.E.F. The Bill does not talk merely of the right objects. Clause 57 refers to
…an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description…
I wonder what the Registrar will say when he has before him a not untypical rule book such as that of my own union. I do not know whether the order in which objects are laid down in a rule book indicates any priority. In my own union, it does. Object No. 1 of my union is not concerned primarily with the terms and conditions of employment. It says:
The objects of the union shall be
(a) The control of industry in the interests of the community…
Are the Government saying that they intend to give the Registrar power to influence or insist upon the deletion or subordination of such objectives in the rule books of unions?
This is part of our apprehension about the rôle of the Registrar. Unions do


not exist only to improve and maintain the living standards of their members. They have longer-term objectives which are much wider. We object to the rôle provided for the Registrar in the Bill and in these new Clauses. For that reason,

we shall oppose them in the Division lobby.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 241.

Division No. 271.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knox, David


Atkins, Humphrey
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lambton, Antony


Awdrey, Daniel
Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Foster, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fowler, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Balniel, Lord
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Batsford, Brian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
Longden, Gilbert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Galbraith, Hn. T, G.
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Blaker, Peter
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Boscawen, Robert
Gorst, John
Madel, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Green, Alan
Mather, Carol


Braine, Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Maude, Angus


Bray, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Brewis, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Burden, F. A.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Haselhurst, Alan
Money, Ernie


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cary, Sir Robert
Havers, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper


Chapman, Sydney
Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Heseltine, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Higgins, Terence L.
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Neave, Airey


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cooper, A. E.




Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom


Cormack, Patrick
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Critchley, Julian
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crouch, David
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Osborn, John


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Curran, Charles
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dean, Paul
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dixon, Piers
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, Rt, Hn. J. M. L.


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)




Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sproat, Iain
Vickers, Dame Joan


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Steel, David
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Wiggin, Jerry


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Sharples, Richard
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodnutt, Mark


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sinclair, Sir George
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trew, Peter



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W R.
Mr. Hector Monro.


Spence, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ginsburg, David
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Buchan, Norman
Golding, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lipton, Marcus


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gourlay, Harry
Lomas, Kenneth


Callaghan, Rt, Hn. James
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Loughlin, Charles


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D, (Islington, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William
McElhone, Frank


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hardy, Peter
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Horam, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Marquand, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Mason, Rt, Hn. Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt, Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Meacher, Michael


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mendelson, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Miner, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Janner, Greville
Molloy, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Deakins, Eric
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Dormand, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Moyle, Roland







Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Rt. Hn Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Murray, R. K.
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Tomney, Frank


Ogden, Eric
Rodcrick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tuck, Raphael


O'Malley, Brian
Roper, John
Urwin, T. W.


Oram, Bert
Rose, Paul B.
Wainwright, Edwin


Orbach, Maurice
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orme, Stanley
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitehead, Phillip


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Springs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Probert, Arthur
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rankin, John
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Swain, Thomas
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Richard, Ivor
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. (zzzzz) to the proposed Clause, in line 38, at end add:
(6) Cancellation of registration pursuant to this section shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be in order to debate the following:
Amendment (oooo) to new Clause 12, in line 9, at end add:
(3) Such cancellation shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.

New Clause 14—"Tax exemptions in respect of benefits".

Mr. Fraser: The Under-Secretary of State in his winding up speech on the last debate said that no financial penalties would be attached to failure to register. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that and the Amendment brings it out. There is a £5 million penalty for failure by trade unions to registar. That £5 million penality arises from the loss of tax exemptions which they will lose if they do not go on to the register.
The Amendment will preserve for trade unions the tax exemptions which they

enjoy for their provident funds under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. That was a consolidating Act, and these benefits go back for about a century. So this is not a recent practice. We are not talking about strike funds or the day-to-day activities of a union but something which lies deep in the tradition of the trade union and working class movements—the tradition of self-help, the tradition going back even to the 17th century of the struggle against injustice, deprivation and sheer poverty.
We are talking not of the financing of political action but of sums which provide for pensions and payments to people for sickness, incapacity, injury at work or unemployment, and pensions to people who had no pension other than the pittance paid by fellow union members. We are talking about benefits to widows and children upon the death of a member, contributions towards his funeral expenses and payment for the loss of the tools of his trade. These benefits have traditionally enjoyed exemption from tax of the investment funds which the union operates. This is what would be removed without the Amendment.
This is a financial penalty, for failure to register, of £5 million, and it must not be allowed to go through. One of the reasons for a union registering at all under the 1871 Act was the benefit it got under these provisions. We are talking about the compassionate mutual funds of a union to provide for need, and this would not be a special privilege for


unions: these exemptions are exactly the same as are provided for friendly societies, insurance companies and industrial and provident societies. The Government propose to take away these benefits.
The unions do one of two things. Either they hypothecate part of their investments and investment income or they take the amount of benefit which has been paid during the year and claim an income tax rebate for it. Because the 1970 Act repealed the 1871 Act, unless a union registers it will no longer get the exemption. There might even be a gap in the Bill whereby even unions which did register would not get the benefit, because the 1970 Act talks about unions which are registered, and they could only have registered with the Registrar under the 1971 Act. But if there is a gap here, I believe that it is an oversight.
Failure to register under the Bill will deprive a union of tax exemption, and this would be a gross inequity. It would be a penal and savage attack not on the strike funds or other funds but on pensioners, widows and people who suffered from sickness or some other disaster. It would cost unions £5 million a year. It could affect pensions already being paid, because without these exemptions those pensions would have to be lowered in a time of rising costs. It will affect the administration of supplementary benefits. If a union pays unemployment, sickness or accident benefit a man on a very low income will not have to go for supplementation, but without these exemptions people might have to go for supplementation.

6.45 p.m.

Of course the Government may say that the union can get over this by registering, but there is enough compulsion to register already. To add this vicious provision would be totally iniquitous and it is not necessary to penalise those in need in order to achieve the Government's political objectives. There is no case for treating these bodies as leprous organisations to be robbed of these exemptions, to show parliamentary disapproval because their parent organisation is not registered.

The Government have effectively cut off any other means of getting exemption. Unions which were not registered might have been able to protect their funds by registering as friendly societies or in-

dustrial and provident societies but for the fact that the Government have cleverly provided that an organisation of workers, not a trade union, may not be a friendly society or an industrial and provident society. So they have ensured that these benefits go only with registration.

Perhaps once or twice I have been uncharitable to the Government. Perhaps they will accept the Amendment. But if they do not they will have set a new high water mark in malice, a new record, a new criteria for vengeance against the dependants of trade unionists as well as the trade unionists themselves.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite have raised this matter, which is very important for the unions. But our previous discussion on the new Clause showed that the Government are being helpful and registering unions automatically, which means that they are covered for all their benefits. So if they opt out of registration they will damage their own provident funds and create difficulties for their own members. They must balance this against registration.
This is one of the reasons why the white-collar unions have said that they must register—because their provident funds will be more hardly hit than those of the manual workers, since they generally pay more benefits—

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Of course I know what I am talking about. If the hon. Gentleman waits he may learn something himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least he will learn that I know what I am talking about, if he learns nothing else.
A certain union leader told me not long ago that the large manual workers' unions—I do not like this term, but it has been used by hon. Members opposite to differentiate these unions from the white-collar unions—do not intend to extend their provident funds. He told me that the unions take the view that the State should provide those services, and that the trade unions no longer wish to expand their pension, sickness, unemployment and other schemes. I regret that, because I think that the British trade


union movement would do itself a great deal of good if it were to expand these activities and if, say, in co-operation with the employers it increased the pensions paid to members.
Hon. Members opposite may like to know from me that the engineering union pays a very small pension to its members, though it has recently increased it by a good percentage. Superannuated members used to get about 10s. or 12s., but that has now gone up to either 15s. or 17s. The railway unions pay even less. Such provident pensions are derisory but they have been kept low over the years because the unions have not expanded in this sphere. Therefore, when hon. Members complain that registration will damage those funds it can be fairly said that the unions themselves have not done very much to assist their members by developing the benefits those members might have been happy to have.
Another good reason why they should expand is that at the moment the unions are almost wholly concerned with negotiating wages. The expansion of which I speak would give them another negotiating objective vis-à-vis the employers. There would be a good deal of sense in unions discussing with employers possibilities of increasing benefits other than wages, whether in the form of longer holidays, or pension and sickness benefits, or in other forms. The State sickness benefits are certainly low, but sick members receive even less from their trade unions. If workpeople are to have security it must be security that goes beyond wages, so that they are looked after when, perforce they have to stay away from work for sickness and, on retirement, may have an addition to the State pension. I can see a good deal of advantage in co-operation between unions and employers in increasing benefits of this kind.
If the unions register, or remain on the register—do not opt out—they will not only be able to retain the present income tax advantages accruing to the benefit of their funds but can add to those advantages and, if they so wish, can increase their funds and the benefits flowing from them. I have been rather surprised that hon. Members opposite should complain about having to opt out of the legislation, because trade union members have to opt out of the political levy, if that is their wish.
We have been told that the Government are very wickedly trying to split the trade unions, but there is more precept than example in that accusation because the trade unions in collecting the political levy force upon their own members the obligation to opt out, otherwise the levy must be paid. The Government are doing precisely the same in respect of registration. There must be a physical act of coming out of registration just as there is a physical act of coming out of the political levy. Unions can retain their benefits if they retain their registration.

Mr. Heffer: A member is told at the union branch when he joins that he can refuse to pay the political levy. If he does so, the form is given to him there and then. That is done on an individual basis, and how it can be equated with what is done on an organisation basis I do not understand.

Mr. Lewis: It is very easy to equate, because the Registrar will be in touch with all the unions once they are on the provisional register. So they will get forms of one kind or another. The secretary of every union will have on his desk some document which will enable him to decide whether or not to go in.
In an earlier debate on registration, a ballot was mentioned. I should have thought that the whole question of provident funds provided an additional reason for having a ballot. If unions are to opt out of registration they must clearly indicate to their members what will be the cost to them in terms of the effect on benefits or on the funds backing those benefits. In those circumstances it will be necessary to give members full information and, union members seeing the disadvantages accruing to them by lack of registration, I cannot imagine that there would be other than a majority who would want registration.
In other words it is not acceptable that the general secretary of a trade union, or his committee, should make a judgment without informing the members and giving them full details of all the financial implications. If union leaders provided members with a full indication of those implications, I am sure that a ballot would come out in


favour of registration. If, on the other hand, a trade union leader were to seek to deregister by the back door, without asking his members, there would be a grave responsibility on him in taking action affecting the members' individual funds without getting the members' permission to do so.
I support the new Clause. I do not accept the Amendment, because it is permissive. There is no obligation on unions to put their funds at jeopardy. They need not do so, provided they do not retain a dogmatic attitude to the Bill. When they register under this Measure their funds will be fully protected, and can increase. The unions can continue to develop their provident funds for the benefit of their members.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Orme: The major craft unions and unions with a craft basis will, in the main, be the hardest hit by these proposals. These organisations have established their own system of social security benefits over the years, which run parallel to, but are in no way designed to replace, the equivalent benefits paid by the State. The more modern unions tend to concentrate on the trade union aspects of their work rather than on providing all-round social benefits.
We are discussing benefits which, because the subscriptions are small, cannot be large. Nevertheless, considerable sums of money are involved. It is almost as though the Secretary of State is setting out to create bitterness between himself and the trade union movement, whose funds will be put in jeopardy by the vindictiveness of the Government.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the funds but the tax advantage which enable those funds to accrue that will be in jeopardy?

Mr. Orme: That is only a refinement of what I said. If my union, the A.U.E.W., whose policy is not to register under these proposals, is faced with this difficulty, it will have to look seriously at redefining its entire membership and subscription set-up.
It is interesting to note that the so-called defenders of widows, orphans and the sick on the benches opposite are not

in evidence today. They are the very people—the low wage earners, the unemployed and the sick—who will be primarily affected. I see these people when I attend my trade union branch meetings, which I try to do once a fortnight or certainly whenever possible. I take the chair and I see 30 or more superannuated members and those who act as visitors and take the money to other recipients.
I see these things going on around me and I am made aware of the bitterness that the Government are creating by these proposals. Somebody might be sick or perhaps a member has lost his tools or has had them stolen and is claiming a grant for new tools. It is a microcosm of the Welfare State. Naturally it cannot rival or replace the Welfare State, but it operates parallel to it.
I appreciate that the major social benefits must be paid by society as a whole. Nevertheless, the unions with which we are concerned succour those in need, including the unemployed. These benefits act as a supplement to those given by the State. The T.U.C. has estimated that £5 million will be in jeopardy by the removal of this tax exemption. This is deplorable.
Members of my union have a choice open to them. Apprentices can pay a small subscription and qualify for limited benefits. When they become fully fledged craftsmen they can either go into what we call Section 1 and qualify for total benefits, including superannuation, or they can go into Section 5 and become just industrial members, but still with full status. The same applies to women members who wish to make subscriptions.
In a union of 1,300,000 members people are coming into and leaving the industry all the time. Some members of my union are so closely associated with the organisation that even when leaving the industry they take what we term outer trade section membership, which enables them to continue to make subscriptions and maintain their right to superannuation at a later date. Often, purely out of affinity, they remain members of the union, though many of them will probably never return to the trade with which the union is primarily concerned.
This is another way in which this wretched Bill will reduce democracy in


the trade union movement. As I say, £5 million which is paid in benefits, on a justifiable and equitable basis—as equitable as any friendly society—will be in jeopardly simply because the Government are adopting a suggestion in the minority report of the Donovan Commission which thought that this might be an inducement to get unions to register.
Donovan also pointed out that 85 per cent. of trade unions opted voluntarily for registration under the 1871 Act. That was done without any coercion or persuasion. Now we are to have compulsory registration, with unions being forced to contract out if they do not wish to be registered. But if they do that, they will lose their schemes for social security benefits, which means that the Bill hits hardest at those who are least able to bear the burden.
I warn the Minister that while he may be able to hurt these people, force trade unions to change their rules and force them to become industrial organisations unable to give the sort of benefits of which I have spoken—apart from strike benefits and membership rights—at the end of the day he will not win. He will leave behind a legacy of bitterness.

Mr. R. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were going to do the sort of things he has been suggesting I certainly would not win. I would not deserve to win. But, then, I am not trying to do those things.

Mr. Orme: In that case, why not accept our Amendment to the proposed Clause, which would avoid any difficulty? If he is not trying to do the things I have accused him of doing, why not leave the position as it is?

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is implying that everything will be lost and that the Bill will be a big minus to the unions. Has he made an estimate of the extra revenue that may accrue to unions from agency shop contributions?

Mr. Orme: A later Amendment appears on that subject and I hope to have time to discuss it.

Mr. Tom King: Answer my question.

Mr. Orme: I do not want to be sidetracked on to that issue, with which I will willingly deal if there is time later.
I want to make it clear that we are not speaking now about union contributions but about benefits. In jeopardy will be the social security benefits which members of unions now get. Many of these people have been paying for these benefits for years. It will be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to convince them that something other than vindictiveness has induced the Government to introduce the new Clause.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I was glad that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) cleared up a point on Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, which was puzzling me. That was the definition of "provident benefits". Under one reading of subsection (2), one might assume that strike pay could be paid. The phrase is
…or while out of work…
That is not identifying the cause why the member was out of work. But he has assured me that this is not the case and that this is an entirely separate fund, separate from the working income and the working funds of the union, and, therefore, should be treated differently.
Plenty of financial penalties will arise from non-registration which will impinge upon the working income and working capital. For example, under the Friendly Societies Act it is possible at present to transfer property without stamp and without paying capital gains tax or anything of that sort. That will go under the new system if the trade union does not register. I support that decision. But when we come to the separate fund—for such it is or should be, and I believe it to be—of the provident benefits, the privilege of tax exemption should be available. It can be made available only if the body is identified clearly—otherwise it will become an abuse—and if it is registered in some way. It is essential if there is to be a tax exemption of the type required—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is a lawyer's argument."] It is a commonsense argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will find that I am not as unsympathetic to his case as he might think. It has to be identified. If it is merely a loose organisation of workers, obviously there will be abuse. Under the present law, an unregistered trade union does not have the advantage of Section 338 of the Act of 1970. This


is because, in order to get such an advantage, obviously it must be clear and approved, and clear and approved in advance.
Under Clause 141 a trade union as such cannot any longer register as a friendly society. That I support. It would be quite wrong for an organisation of masters and men, to use the old and outmoded phrase, to be able to register in future either as a friendly society or as a company, as many of them have in the past. But surely those trade unions which have these funds and wish to continue, as it were, to write insurance in the future, in the way movingly described by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), can set up a separate friendly society. What is wrong with that? They could set up a friendly society with the objectives of a provident or a friendly society, as the case may be. It could have the same personnel, no doubt, as its trustees. It could hive off its existing funds and it could carry on with the extremely good work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
I should have thought that any union which does not choose to register—foolishly, in my opinion, but it is not my opinion which matters—and thereby incurs all sorts of other financial detriments, such as I have mentioned earlier, nevertheless need not incur them because it can erect a friendly society devoted entirely to this object, but identified in people's minds and probably in other ways by having as its officers the former and existing members or officers of the trade union concerned. I see no legal objection to that. If they did that, the sting of what is an unworthy attack upon the compassion of the Conservative Party entirely disappears.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I appreciate the purpose of his comments. I am grateful for them. It is not quite as simple as he suggests, in view of Clause 63. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at Clause 63, I should like to have his learned opinion on the matter. The Clause suggests that any organisation which is not in control of its property or funds is not a trade union in this sense. Therefore, it cannot

hive off, in the way that he suggests, its property and funds into a specially sponsored friendly society for the purpose of registering that society, because it defeats its objective—except that it is argued that the union is not registered and, therefore, that part of Clause 63 does not apply to it.
The next stage is that to preserve its tax position, it is the federation business which enables the trade union to escape the penalties. In the case, for instance, of the A.U.E.W., it is held at present that its rule is a federation of rules. It is not a single union from 1st January, 1971, but a federation of four trade unions. The rules governing each section that now constitute the A.U.E.W. are a federation of rules. They have never been brought together. The amalgamation has never taken place. Therefore, in the sense that the Bill refers to a federation of trade unions, the A.U.E.W. is a federation, and it could be argued that as a federation, because it is not required to register, that federation could be acceptable under the terms of friendly societies or under the terms of the law governing friendly societies' investment and tax rebates.
Similarly, the Transport and General Workers' Union has just concluded negotiations to come together with the Scottish Motormen. Legally, I understand that when those rules are brought together, that will be a federation of two unions, a small one and the large union of the Transport and General Workers. For the purpose of the Bill, on the question of registration as a friendly society, it is a federation. Therefore, because of the federated rules which govern its property and funds, it may be possible to continue its registration as a friendly society.
If we fully understand the importance of what the hon. and learned Member for Darwen is saying and apply it to Clause 63 and look at the whole question of federated rules, we shall see that most trade unions are amalgams of some sort and, therefore, have federated arrangements, and that it is possible for them to register under those terms and still continue to claim income tax rebates, and so on, as federated groups.
The second way is for the T.U.C. to set up a provident fund to which affiliated trade unions could transfer their property on a temporary basis. It is not beyond the wit of lawyers and accountants to


devise a mechanism to enable trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. to continue to derive benefit from registration as friendly societies and to get round this particular provision. I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I take it that these are possibilities. I am canvassing the possibilities because it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has said, they are pursuing a vendetta against organised workers. It would be contradictory to that vendetta if the Government conceded this Amendment. We cannot expect that the Amendment will be accepted, and it will, therefore, be necessary for trade unions to take legal advice and accountancy advice in setting up structures to enable them to maintain their position in terms of income tax rebate.
The figure suggested by the T.U.C. is £5 million, but I believe the total is far higher than that. Most trade unions are deriving considerable sums from renting parts of newly-built property. The A.U.E.W. has long since discontinued using its funds to enable members to buy their own houses. It now puts all its available money into the building of new premises, most of which are rented out to other organisations. That is the income which enables the union to supplement its superannuation fund.
Mention was made of the smallness of the benefit. That is true, but the contribution is very small. It is 4p per week. That is all a section 1 member pays for superannuation benefit, and he may derive from it 16s. per week for many years—

Mr. Orme: Up to £1.

Mr. Atkinson: The average is up to £1, but he gets that for 4p per week contribution. That is a better transaction than most insurance societies and even the Government scheme offer in terms of a return. That is dependent upon the income tax rebate and on the rent return.
The Transport and General Workers Union puts its tax rebates and benefits under this Section of the 1970 Act as £750,000 a year. That is a lot of money. If that is so for the T. & G.W., the total amount for all the affiliated unions will he much more than £5 million. Even if the Government refuse to concede this

point about income tax rebates, all is not lost. It is possible for legal advisers and accountants to set up organisations which are capable of escaping from the penalties which appear to be imposed by the Bill.

Mr. R. Carr: In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I said that if the Government were trying to do the things of which they are accused they would not win and would not deserve to win, and they are not trying to do them. I resist these Amendments only because they are not necessary. The charges levelled against the Government in the opening speeches were either based on ignorance—which I certainly hope—or on hypocrisy and misrepresentation of a kind which I find nauseating. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was much fairer in his appraisal of the situation.
Of course we are not penalising widows, pensioners and other people who receive benefit on compassionate grounds from provident funds. It is long-established common practice to tie tax concessions for provident benefit activities to registration, so that there is a check—and surely there must be a check—on the organisation's financial worthiness and a general continuing check on its financial state of affairs. That is a principle which we must maintain.
We offer unions two ways of meeting that requirement. First, they should register as a trade union as proposed under the Bill. That is not only in the public interest, it is easy, and we do not regard it as oppressive. It is much less oppressive than the method of registration originally put forward by the Labour Government. We believe that registration brings considerable benefits. We do not regard it as oppressive to say that that is one way in which trade unions can obtain the continuance of their provident fund activities with full tax exemption. If—misguidedly as we believe, and unnecessarily misguidedly—a union chooses to cancel its registration, there is nothing to stop it hiving off its provident funds, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, into separate organisations, registering them as friendly societies and thereby achieving


the present degree of registration which we believe to be the minimum required for provident fund activities for the long-term protection of the beneficiaries.
This is a fuss over nothing. There are two perfectly legitimate ways of meeting this requirement. There is the existing one of registering a provident society, in which case it is necessary to form a provident society, and registering as a trade union and, as a registered trade union, getting an exemption as at the moment. Both these ways achieve the proper exemption which the Government wish to be available for the beneficiaries of genuine provident funds.

Mr. Atkinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman read and closely studied the remarks of the Solicitor-General on the fifth allotted day when at the end of the debate he spoke in great detail about registration and went on to say why he thought it was not possible, without changes being made, for a trade union to register as a friendly society?

Mr. Carr: I take that point. It is not possible, as I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen said, for a trade union also to register as a friendly society. It is possible for a union which decides not to register under the Bill but to remain an unregistered organisation of workers to hive off its provident funds and to form a friendly society. I do not think the House would wish me to go into details, but I have sought careful advice and any fears the hon. Gentleman has on those grounds are unfounded. There is no obstacle to forming a friendly society and dealing with the matter in that way.

Mr. John Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a separate endowment fund used for the payment of benefits. What happens in practice is that some trade unions do not have a separate capital fund but make an income tax claim at the end of the financial year in respect of the benefits which they have actually paid out. It is not, therefore, possible to transfer the assets, because the assets are not in a separate fund in the first place. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 1871 Act does not require the perusal and auditing of accounts of a registered trade union, and that that privilege has been in

existence for 100 years? If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about the accountancy aspect, that can be dealt with by a separate Amendment to the effect that the funds should be audited. Neither of his arguments carries a great deal of weight.

Mr. Carr: I do not pretend to be technical on the subject of provident funds, but if a provident fund were not separated from the general fund I should have thought, as a normal, commonsense view, it ought to be and the sooner it is separated, the better. Otherwise, if it is all part of the general capital fund, what would prevent a union engaged in a protracted industrial dispute—I do not for a moment believe that unions would deliberately act irresponsibly, but I pose the question—using up money which had been put aside for provident purposes in order to fight that industrial dispute? That would not be proper in the interests of beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. I am not suggesting that that happens, but I am pointing out that there cannot be any hardship or insuperable difficulty—and I think it absolutely right in principle—in separately identifying the funds devoted to the provident purposes of the union.
In another context, Clause 139 of the Bill encourages the separation of funds. If they do not do it already for what I regard as that good and beneficial reason, I am sure that unions will wish to separate these funds because, if a union becomes liable for compensation, quite rightly and properly, one must give it power to separate its industrial fighting fund, so to speak, and thus make immune from possible loss through compensation payments the amount of money which is devoted to provident purposes. It would be wrong if the Bill did not give unions the opportunity to separate out their provident funds for that purpose as well.
I assure the House that the pensions of widows and all the other beneficiaries are perfectly easily protectable under the Bill if it is enacted in its present form.

7.30 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: That rather complacent speech from the Secretary of State is typical of the Government's attitude throughout. Under the Bill as it stands, trade unions will suffer financial penalties by losing the tax exemption for a side of


their activities which has nothing whatever to do with their negotiating work. I am interested to see that the right hon. Gentleman rejects the approach of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), who, I thought, believed that he was interpreting the Government's mind when he said that it was quite right that a union which was wicked enough not to register under the Bill should lose tax benefits in respect of all its work.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is the faithful mirror of what most Tories think they will get out of the Bill. We had a revelation of the grassroots attitude when, admonishing the trade unions, he said, "What are they grumbling about? They need not put their funds in jeopardy if they do not adopt a dogmatic attitude to the Bill". That is the pure doctrine of the "State licence to operate" concept which permeates the Bill.
It was, therefore, a refreshing relief to hear the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) approach the matter in a more objective way and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) that we were dealing here with quite separate types of activity on the part of trade unions which, said he, should be treated differently. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least had the grace and courtesy to recognise that, if a union engages in what are near-charitable activities, it ought to have the appropriate tax treatment in respect of those activities.
Our complaint is that, contrary to what the Secretary of State says, the Bill does not reflect that principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite simple, and that all a union had to do was to set up a separate friendly society fund. But that, to put it at its lightest, would be inconvenient.
Yesterday, we had a long debate about how one should treat professional associations which, it was argued, had a dual nature and dual capacity. It was important, we were told, that the Bill should lean over backwards so to adjust the law as to enable those professional bodies to exercise their two different functions without inconvenience. We were told that there were organisations in this country, limited companies or chartered bodies,

which engaged in both negotiating activities and what hon. Members opposite clearly seemed to think were more reputable activities, namely, educational work or activity coming under the vague formula, the public good, associated with the chartered body.
Because it was difficult for such bodies to carry on those two activities under the Bill with proper protection and immunity, the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce three complicated new Clauses setting up a special register. When it was said that the special register would apply to a body which was already a limited company as well as having negotiating activities but that it should not apply to a limited company in the future, and when we asked what was the distinction in principle, and why should not the B.M.A. be told to reorganise its affairs so as to cease to be a limited company the Solicitor-General's answer was that it would cause inconvenience to the B.M.A.
We have here an absolutely parallel situation. We are not talking about the negotiating side of a trade union's work. We are talking about its provident and benefit side, its charitable work.

Mr. R. Carr: I think that the right hon. Lady is pursuing a misconceived argument. What the Government were saying yesterday was not that the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing and so on could go on pursuing all their industrial relations activities, with all their present privileges, without registering. We said, "If you want to do that, you must register, and we are here making it possible for you to register". To some extent, we are making the British Medical Association, for example, reorganise its affairs. If it wants to continue doing what it is doing at the moment, it will have to register, for otherwise it will not have its present protections.
What we say to the unions in this case is this: "If you register, you do nothing; you just go on as you do at the moment. If, on the other hand, you wish not to register, you must separate this off and make it a friendly society".

Mrs. Castle: What the right hon. Gentleman said to the B.M.A. was, "We will provide a special form of registration under the Bill that will enable you to


continue your activities without the inconvenience of rearranging them." Our Amendment asks for exactly the same thing on behalf of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that to enjoy tax exemptions for their provident benefit fund unions must be registered in some form or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood suggested that there were other ways of controlling those funds so that there was no abuse, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has established that that is unavoidable. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that such tax exemptions must be tied to registration, we have offered him a form of registration in the Amendment, namely, that they should be tied to those unions which register under the 1871 Act. That can be called a special register, purely for the provident benefit funds of trade unions.
It is a little revealing that the right hon. Gentleman sees no difficulty in having special registers for special groups of professional people but refuses to allow the continuation of registration under the 1871 Act as the qualification for this side of the unions' activities alone.
We are not at this stage arguing about whether unions are right to say that they will not register under the Bill. It is outrageous to ask them to register. The House knows our views, and I will not repeat them.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen and the right hon. Gentleman both said that it is right to say that the provident benefit activities, the friendly society activities, of trade unions are different from their negotiating activities and should be treated differently. If that is the principle, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to find a way for it to be embodied in the Bill, and not tell the trade unions, "It is simple for you. Either you register—and if you are sensible you will—or you must reorganise your affairs into a separate friendly society fund." That is financial blackmail of the trade unions. There can be no other phrase for it, because they are being told, "Unless you do that you face the loss of millions of pounds of revenue. You must do the adjusting. I am not prepared to adjust my Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman gives us the principle, he must give us the means by a device in the Bill, just

as yesterday he gave the means to the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing, the chartered engineers and the rest. If he does not give the means there will be two types of treatment in his approach for two different types of people.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispel what he clearly considers to be outrageous misrepresentations by us about his motives and methods, we once again offer him a very simple way to prove his good will and his good faith in the matter. He admits that it is outrageous if trade unions have to lose these tax exemptions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Lady knows that what she is saying is absolute rubbish. The situation clearly is that the special groups we talked about yesterday in connection with the special register must register none the less. The special register was created simply for activities that were not concerned with funds which dealt with sickness benefits, pensions and the like but were quite separate. Those groups must register just the same. Is the right hon. Lady saying that if we had another kind of register, but still a register under the Bill, giving it a different name, she would advise all the trade unions to register under it? They have still the option.

Mrs. Castle: I do not want an intervention by the hon. Gentleman to turn into a speech. I leave the House to judge whether it is I or the hon. Gentleman who is talking nonsense. When it is said that the B.M.A. must register, my answer is, "Yes, certainly. But it does not have to register on the same register as trade unions. It must register on a special register set up to help it through the difficulties caused by its dual capacity." In the Amendment we are asking not that the unions should not register to get the tax exemptions for their friendly society funds but that, like the B.M.A., they should not have to register on the main register but should register under the 1871 Act, purely for the purpose of drawing the tax exemption for their provident benefit funds. The parallel between my argument and the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the B.M.A. is exact. If he wishes to dispel the deep-rooted belief that there is discrimination here in his whole instinctive approach against the trade unions,


he has a very simple way of doing it. He can accept our Amendment and create for trades union friendly society funds a special register.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Michael Grylls: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has made a lot of fuss about the inconvenience of the alternative method of looking after the provident funds of the unions. She is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is clear that the unions have two avenues. If they do not choose to take the avenue of registration, they have the other avenue, and so the provident funds are absolutely secure. If they wish to take the more difficult avenue and not to register, that is entirely a decision of their own making. The inconvenience about which the right hon. Lady talked is created not by the Government in the Bill but by the trade unions which decide to take that path.
I have been astounded by all the claims about worries over registration. Labour right hon. and hon. Members, claiming to represent unions—in some instances, by suggestion, claiming to represent many millions of members, I think falsely—say that some of the unions will shrink from registration. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that his union would shrink from it. I cannot understand what they are frightened about.
The unions, as regards tax concessions, are in no different position from a company under the Companies Act, 1948. For example, I.C.I. does not find itself hindered because its articles of association have to be examined by the Registrar of Companies. It is right that unions asking for the same privileges should see that their rules are examined in a similar way.
The provision has been called a method of taking away £5 million from the trade unions. It should be made clear that there is no question of that. My right hon. Friend said that the unions have an absolute protection either by registration or by hiving off. Surely, it is a cardinal rule that a person or company claiming taxation relief should have to comply with certain regulations to enjoy that privilege. All that the Government are asking the unions and other organisations to

do is to submit to the perfectly fair and reasonable requirements of the Bill if they wish to have their funds protected in the way which we think is right. It is perfectly proper that there should be public checks of such funds.
Rather than being a threat to the unions, the provision is the reverse. A good case could be made out for saying that this is a way of protecting the funds. The rules can take care of that, by seeing that they can be examined.
There are advantages in registration, not least the tax advantage. The unions have nothing to lose but everything to gain by registration. Labour hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot talk at one moment about the unions losing £5 million, and a so-called threat to the provident funds, and then say that they have nothing to gain by registration. They have everything to gain by registration under the Bill. But if they do not choose to register they can protect their provident funds adequately in the other way suggested, by hiving them off.

Mr. R. Carr: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a very few words more. I want to avoid misunderstanding between the two sides of the House on this problem, which is quite separate from our main controversies about industrial relations.
The right hon. Lady drew a comparison between the Government's action yesterday in relation to a special register for certain bodies and our action today. We proposed a special register for them because there was no other way in which they could register and continue the industrial relations part of their activities with the protection they now enjoy. If we had not provided it they would have had to choose between continuing one part of their activities—industrial relations—and giving up the others, and holding to the others and giving up their traditional industrial relations activities. That did not seem either necessary or fair, so we provided them with the means of registering. But the registration is no easier. Such bodies still have to satisfy the principles laid down in Clause 61 and to satisfy the Registrar that they have rules on all the items laid down in Schedule 3. I proposed that special register only because, it was necessary.
I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register. But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty. I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense. Therefore, there is a special register in existence.

Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the problems that a trade union will have, run as it is in the main by thousands of voluntary workers, in splitting the two funds and administering them separately for perhaps 1,300,000 members, some entitled to payments and some not? It is a job of such magnitude that it will be almost impossible to administer.

Mr. Carr: That is a matter about which we can no doubt argue, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the position. I believe that, one way or the other, the provident funds of unions should be separately identifiable and separately accountable for, and if they are not so already, then it is right that they should become so in future.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is correcting the Solicitor-General in the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman made earlier? I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is returning because he can listen to my question. I remind the Solicitor-General that, in answer to me, he confirmed that an unregistered union would not be able to take benefit from various Acts in order to seek tax rebates as a result of investment of its provident funds. As reported in HANSARD of 10th February, he spelt out clearly that unregistered unions could not derive benefit in the way which the Secretary of State now suggests. I take it that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have put their heads together and that the Secretary of State is

correcting what the Solicitor-General said earlier.

Mr. Carr: I do not believe that it is a correction. If my hon. and learned Friend thinks that I am confirming wrongly, I am sure that he will not fail to say so. A trade union, an organisation of workers, as such cannot do the things my hon. and learned Friend say they cannot do. I repeat that they can hive off their provident funds and activities and get the protection of the tax exemptions they enjoy at the moment.

Mrs. Castle: We have before had statements by the Solicitor-General which later have either had to be corrected or, alternatively, endorsed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions, which are profoundly concerned about this matter, have studied what was said by the Solicitor-General on 10th February as reported in columns 659 and 660 of HANSARD of that date, and have received advice that it was both the intention of the Government that they should cease to enjoy friendly society benefits and that they would de facto so cease. The Solicitor-General concluded on that occasion:
Under the 1871 Act, registration enables a trade union to enjoy the benefits of a friendly society in respect of provident funds, while registration under the Bill would carry the same consequences, but it would not be admissible for an unregistered organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 660.]
That was the policy stand of the Solicitor-General, and now the Secretary of State says that we are making a lot of fuss about what is a completely innocent purpose of the Government. He says that they would not dream of making sure that provident funds ceased to enjoy tax exemptions. The Government are again talking with a double voice and the House is again being misled.

Mr. Carr: Since we are being accused of misleading the House, I must again try to make clear that we are not. What my hon. and learned Friend said in the context of that debate, and what I repeat today, is that an unregistered organisation as such cannot do the things which my hon. and learned Friend said that it cannot do. In that, he was quite right and I confirm it. But there is nothing to prevent the unregistered organisation from doing what I have suggested—hiving


off its provident funds and activities and registering under one of the Acts provided for such activities—if it gives them any pleasure, I remind hon. Members opposite that both these Acts were passed by the Labour Government—and also enjoying the benefits which they enjoy at the moment. Under those Acts, there is still tax exemption available and all these organisations have to do is take advantage of them.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Atkinson: It is not as easy as that. What the Solicitor-General was doing on 10th February was confirming the claim I had made that non-registration would collectively cost the trade unions more

than £5 million. The hon. and learned Gentleman said then, "It is too bad; that is the cost of non-registration." He went on to spell out in detail the reasons why unregistered unions would not be able to take the benefits from the investment of their provident funds. He said, "It is too bad; that is the price which unregistered unions must pay." We are glad to hear that the Secretary of State has corrected that and has put the Solicitor-General right, and that therefore we can perhaps pass on to other provisions.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 287.

Division No. 272.]
AYES
[8.1 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashley, Jack
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Judd, Frank


Barnes, Michael
Ellis, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Fred
Kerr, Russell


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lamond, James


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Latham, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Ford, Ben
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Forrester, John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Leonard, Dick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Loughlin, Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gourlay, Harry
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hamilton, William(Fife, W.)
McElhone, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McGuire, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hardy, Peter



Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Harper, Joseph
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cohen, Stanley
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackie, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, At. Hn. Judith
Mackintosh, John P.


Conlan, Bernard
Hattersley, Roy
Maclennan, Robert


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hooson, Emlyn
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Horam, John
Marks, Kenneth


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Marquand, David


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Leslie
Meacher, Michael


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mendelson, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Janner, Greville
Molloy, William


Deakins, Eric
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dempsey, James
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Doig, Peter
John, Brynmor
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dormark, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)




Moyle, Roland
Richard, Ivor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tinn, James


Murray, Ronald King
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tomney, Frank


Ogden, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Torney, Tom


O'Halloran, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Tuck, Raphael


O'Malley, Brian
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Urwin, T. W.


Oram, Bert
Roper, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Orbach, Maurice
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oswald, Thomas
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wallace, George


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Watkins, David


Palmer, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Weitzman, David


Pardoe, John
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Pavitt, Laurie
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Pendry, Tom
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pentland, Norman
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Steel, David
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Prescott, John
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Probert, Arthur
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley



Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. William Hamling and


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Rhodes, Geoffrey






NOES


Adley, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crowder, F. P.
Haselhurst, Alan


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Curran, Charles
Hastings, Stephen


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Havers, Michael


Astor, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James MaJ.-Gen.
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey
Dean, Paul
Hay, John


Awdry, Daniel
Dixon, Piers
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Heseltine, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Hicks, Robert


Batsford, Brian
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Dykes, Hugh
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Eden, Sir John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Benyon, W.
Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)
Holland, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Holt, Miss Mary


Biffen, John
Emery, Peter
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Eyre, Reginald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Fell, Anthony
Howell, David (Guildford)


Body, Richard
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fidler, Michael
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bowden, Andrew
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Braine, Bernard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
James, David


Bray, Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fox, Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)



Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N &amp; M)
Fry, Peter
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Buck, Antony
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gardner, Edward
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Burden, F. A.
Gibson-Watt, David
Kimball, Marcus


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cary, Sir Robert
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kinsey, J. R.


Channon, Paul
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kirk, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Timothy


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Lambton, Antony


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Green, Alan
Lane, David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Grieve, Percy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cooke, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Coombs, Derek
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Longden, Gilbert


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Loveridge, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McCrindle, R. A.







McLaren, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, John


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapseil, Peter


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Madel, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Maginnis, John E.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Marten, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman


Mather, Carol
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maude, Angus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradlmg (Monmouth)


Mawby, Ray
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tilney, John


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trafford, Dr Anthony


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trew, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tugendhat, Christopher


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Moryneaux, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Money, Ernie
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Waddington, David


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Rost, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Monroe, Hector
Royle, Anthony
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Montgomery, Fergus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott, Nicholas
Ward, Dame Irene




Warren, Kenneth


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Wiggin, Jerry


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sheet, T. H. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Nott, John
Soref, Harold
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Speed, Keith
Woodnutt, Mark


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Spence, John
Worsley, Marcus


Osborn, John
Sproat, Iain
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Stainton, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Percival, Ian
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 237.

Division No. 273.]
AYES
[8.13 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Eden, Sir John


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buck, Antony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Emery, Peter


Astor, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Cary, Sir Robert
Farr, John


Awdry, Daniel
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fidler, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Batsford, Brian
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Cockeram, Eric
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooke, Robert
Fortescue, Tim


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Derek
Foster, Sir John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cooper, A. E.
Fowler, Norman


Biffen, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Critchley, Julian
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Gardner, Edward


Boscawen, Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Curran, Charles
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj.-Gen.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
Dixon, Piers
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gorst, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Drayson, G. B.
Gower, Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Paul
Dykes, Hugh
Green, Alan




Grieve, Percy
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crylls, Michael
Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas


Gummer, Selwyn
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marten, Neil
Sharpies, Richard


Hall-Davies, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maude, Angus
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mawby, Ray
Simeons, Charles


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hastings, Stephen
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Soref, Harold


Havers, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Spence, John


Hay, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger
Stainton, Keith


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Molyneaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Heseltine, Michael
Money, Ernie
Steel, David


Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper
Stokes, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sutcliffe, John


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tapsell, Peter


Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hornby, Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nott, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hunt, John

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Tilney, John


James, David
Osborn, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Trew, Peter


Jessel, Toby
Pardoe, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Joplirg, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Dame Joan


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pounder, Rafton
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kimball, Marcus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walt, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Ward, Dame Irene


Kinsey, J. R.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Kirk, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy
White, Roger (Cravesend)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Lambton, Antony
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wilkinson, John


Lane, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodnutt, Mark


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



McCrindle, R. A.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McLaren, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rost, Peter
Mr. Walter Clegg.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Royle, Anthony





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Allen, Scholefield
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Booth, Albert
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnes, Michael
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Barnett, Joel
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Crawshaw, Richard


Beaney, Alan
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Cronin, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Carmichael, Neil
Dalyell, Tam


Bishop, E. S.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George







Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Pendry, Tom


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Judd, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kaufman, Gerald
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Deakins, Eric
Kerr, Russell
Price, William (Rugby)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Probert, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rankin, John


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas-Marat, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Driberg, Tom
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Leonard, Dick
Roberts.Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;Radnor)


ENis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Roper, John


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul B.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silliars, James


Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Mackenzie, Cregor
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Spearing, Nigel


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Golding, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Hardy, Peter
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Harper, Joseph
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tuck, Raphael


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Urwin, T. W.


Hattersley, Roy
Molloy, William
Wainwright, Edwin


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)
Wallace, George


Horam, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, David


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Weitzman, David


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfield, Leslie
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Ronald King
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hunter, Adam
Oram, Bert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


John, Brynmor
Palmer, Arthur



Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. William Hamling.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)

New Clause 12

CANCELLATION BY REGISTRAR ON REQUEST OR WHERE ORGANISATION CEASES TO EXIST

(1) The registrar may at any time cancel the entry of an organisation in the provisional register, or the registration of an organisation under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association,—

(a) at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct, or

(b) if the registrar is satisfied that the organisation has ceased to exist.

(2) Where the registrar exercises the power conferred by the preceding subsection, he shall cause notice of the cancellation to be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment


(aaaaaa) to the proposed Clause, in line 4, leave out
'evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct'.
The views of both sides of the House have already been canvassed on this matter. The words which we propose to leave out may have been innocent enough in 1871 and could be introduced again. That is not our objection. They appear in Section 8 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876, and it cannot be said that there is anything peculiarly sinister about them. But the situation concerning trade union law in 1876 was very different from what it is in 1971 and very different from what it will be when the Bill is enacted.
First, in 1876, the Registrar did not have the powers which the Registrar will have under Clauses 61 and 64 to determine to some extent what rules a trade union will have and to lay down conditions of a kind which we do not yet know and which a trade union will have to fulfil before it is permitted to register under the Bill. So the Registrar will have discretionary powers of interference and will be able to lay down conditions for the entry of trade unions. Such discretionary powers did not exist in the 1876 Act.
Second, the position of trade unions has completely altered since 1876. Nobody here today would be able to make a fair presentation of the powers, functions and limitations of trade unions without taking into account, for example, the vital 1906 Act, which in many ways transformed the unions and made it possible for them to function in the industrial sphere in the way in which they have done. Therefore, a pre-1906 union was an entirely different creature from a post-1906 union, as has been emphasised in many of our debates.
It follows that for these two reasons the registrar's power in 1876 was an entirely different power from the power the Registrar will get under the Bill in 1971. Not only will the Registrar under this Bill have powers and discretion altogether different from those which his colleague had in 1876, but by the same token the trade unions are losing powers; because, in so far as the Registrar can determine rules and lay down conditions,

it necessarily follows that the union itself has not full sovereignty over its rules and must subject itself to some extent to conditions laid down by the Registrar. Therefore, the trade unions have lost some of their sovereignty—that is the point of the Bill as presented by the Government—and the Registrar has gained considerably in powers and discretion.
For these reasons alone, I am entitled to say that the words
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
though perfectly innocuous and innocent in 1871 and 1876 may have an entirely different connotation and effect today. It is my firm view that those words, which were innocent and innocuous then, cannot be regarded in the same light today.
8.30 p.m.
Registration under the 1876 Act allowed for withdrawal by a union which was so registered. The provision, which is the same provision as that in new Clause 12(1)(a)—
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
was followed after the 1876 Act by directions by the Registrar, under that Act and under the 1871 Act, as to how a union which was registered might withdraw and cancel its certificate of registry. There was a statutory form.
I have been fortunate enough to have been given a copy of this statutory form by an hon. Friend who did some research on the subject. I have here Form J, which is the appropriate statutory form under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1964 providing for a request to withdraw or cancel a certificate of registry.
So, if we want to discover what is the practical effect of the words
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
we can do no better than look at Form J for the appropriate steps under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1964. The form provides, first, for the name of the trade union and its registered number. It then is addressed to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or his Scottish counterpart.
The form proceeds:
(1) The above-named Trade Union desires that its certificate of registry under the Trade


Union Acts may be withdrawn [or cancelled] on the following ground.
Here the person entering the form and filling it up is invited to
State reason for desiring withdrawal or cancelling of certificate of registry.
That knocks a hole in the presentation by the Government spokesman, because this is an additional factor. It is not simply a question of a trade union reaching the view that it should cancel its registration and then intimating that decision in an appropriate manner to the Registrar. It is a question of the Registrar being given reason or grounds. This goes far beyond a mere registration of a decision which the union reaches within its own rules and within the four corners of its own meetings.
The form proceeds:
on the following ground … and at a general meeting … it was resolved as follows:
(1) That the Trustees be authorised to request the Chief [or Assistant Registrar] to withdraw [or cancel] the certificate of registry of this Trade Union".
So again we go beyond the office bearers of the union to a general meeting and beyond the general meeting and the office bearers to the trustees. That goes to show just how far a direction of this kind may extend.
Nobody on this side will accept the assurances which were given by the Government Front Bench that this is the innocuous provision that it appears to be.
However, I do not want to be taken as saying that there is something sinister or ulterior about that. I cannot say that. It is possible that this provision could be read by a Registrar in a perfectly reasonable way. I merely say that if the words
evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct
remain they will allow the Registrar at least to follow the precedent of his predecessor under the 1871 to 1964 Acts. That is the best that can happen. At the worst, it would seem to me to be giving the Registrar an entirely free discretion, as far as I can see within the four corners of the Bill as amended by the new Clause, to give such directions as he may think fit to unions after the passing of the Act.
I conceive that this could go very far. The Registrar might require not merely a ballot but a certain majority. He might

interfere in the most specific and direct way with the internal organisation of a union in this respect. That would not carry him into the sort of interference he can make under Clauses 61 and 64. This would be an additional interference. But it plainly would have this effect. It would make it more difficult for unions to contract out.
The Government have sought to present this provision in an attractive form. As one of my hon. Friends said, it has been done with honeyed words. However, behind those honeyed words the reality is that the provision will slow down, reduce or even take away the right of a trade union to get out of registration. Instead of a union contracting into registration, which is the way in which this was presented, this is a form of contracting out. What is more, it is a form of contracting out with obstacles. It is made difficult to contract out, and there is nothing to stop the Registrar increasing the obstacles at his discretion. For those reasons, we consider that the words should be deleted.
It may be that the Government will say that the words mean nothing sinister. Let us see the colour of their money. If all that they are after is that there should be a written request by an authorised person, why not make an Amendment to that effect instead of putting in words which seem to increase the power of the Registrar? I urge the Government to think again and, if they will not, I am afraid that I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to oppose the new Clause and to insist on our Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman invited the Government to allow the Opposition to see the colour of our money. I am proposing to enable right hon. and hon. Members opposite to do that.
The fears which the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined and which are provoked by these words are, like so many of the fears and anxieties expressed from the benches opposite, without foundation and fanciful. When this matter was referred to in our previous debate, I explained that these words are intended to achieve no more than that the request to withdraw should be evidenced so that the Registrar may be satisfied that such a request has been made.
The hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that this is the form in which it has operated since 1876. He has drawn attention to Form J and suggested that this illustrates the sinister nature of the things which could be read into this provision. If one looks at Form J as it is printed in the Appendix to Citrine's Trade Union Law, the phrase which alarms the hon. and learned Gentleman,
… and at a general meeting …",
has a note attached to it,
If not at a general meeting, state in what manner the request has been determined upon.
The form makes it plain that the organisation can determine the request. It merely has to say on the form that that is what has happened.
The only intention of the provision in new Clause 12(1,a) is that the organisation should have requested cancellation. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to suggest that the same form of words may have changed its meaning with the passage of time. However, it appears in the Building Societies Act, 1962, and in the Industrial and Provident Societies

Act, 1965, enacted by the last Government. No one sought to suggest anything sinister in those connotations.

There is nothing sinister at all. There is no scope for anything sinister. But, in order to assure the Opposition that this intention is indeed the Government's intention, I advise the House to accept the Amendment. We were challenged to show the colour of our money, and we show it. I do it seriously to assure the Opposition and the trade union movement that there are no sinister implications to be found lurking in this phraseology. The intention is to make it plain that, at the request of the organisation, it may have its registration cancelled. On that basis, and laying our money on the table, money which is as sound as a bell and as honest and well founded as money can be, I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge and invite the House to accept the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Clause agreed to.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 234.

Division No. 274.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fookes, Miss Janet


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fortescue, Tim


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Churchill, W. S.
Foster, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fowler, Norman


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fox, Marcus


Astor, John
CIegg, Walter
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey
Cockeram, Eric
Fry, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Coombs, Derek
Gardner, Edward


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooper, A. E.
Gibson-Watt, David


Batsford, Brian
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bell, Ronald
Cormack, Patrick
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Costain, A. P.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Critchley, Julian
Goodhart, Philip


Benyon, W.
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Curran, Charles
Gray, Hamish


Biggs-Davison, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.
Green, Alan


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Grieve, Percy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Dixon, Piers
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Body, Richard
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Gummer, Selwyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Halt, John (Wycombe)


Braine, Bernard
Dykes, Hugh
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.


Bray, Ronald
Eden, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brewis, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harmam, John (Exeter)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bryan, Paul
Emery, Pew
Haselhurst, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Eyre, Reginald
Hastings, Stephen


Buck, Antony
Farr, John
Havers, Michael


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fell, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul


Burden, F. A.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hayhoe, Barney


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fidler, Michael
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Hicks, Robert


Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Higgins, Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hiley, Joseph




Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Moate, Roger
Sheet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holt, Miss Mary
Money, Ernie
Soref, Harold


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Speed, Keith


Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Howell, David (Guildford)
More, Jasper
Stainton, Keith


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hunt, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Mudd, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


James, David
Murton, Oscar
Stokes, John


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Jessel, Toby
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sutcliffe, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Tapsell, Peter


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nott, John
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Joplin, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)



Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tebbit, Norman


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kimball, Marcus
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pink, R. Bonner
Tilney, John


Kinsey, J. R.
Pounder, Rafton
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Kirk, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Trew, Peter


Kitson, Timothy
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Tugendhat, Chirstopher


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Knox, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lambton, Antony
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lane, David
Raison, Timothy
Waddington, David


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsmouth, Langstone)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Walters, Dennis


Longden, Gilbert
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveridge, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


McLaren, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
White, Roger (Cravesend)


Mclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Madel, David
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wilkinson, John


Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Marples, Rt. Hn. Emest
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouee, Hn, Christopher


Mather, Carol
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maude, Angus
Russell, Sir Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Mawby, Ray
St. John-stevas, Norman
Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hon. George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James



Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Miscampbell, Norman
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Simeons, Charles





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Carmichael, Neil
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Driberg, Tom


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dunnett, Jack


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Eadie, Alex


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Barnes, Michael
Coleman, Donald



Barnett, Joel
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, Tom


Beaney, Alan
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
English, Michael


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Evans, Fred


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Crawshaw, Richard
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dalyell, Tam
Foot, Michael


Booth, Albert
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Davidson, Arthur
Forrester, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Fraser, John (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Buchan, Norman
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ginsburg, David


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Golding, John


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dempsey, James
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Doig, Peter
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)







Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McBride, Neil
Richard, Ivor


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
McCartney, Hugh
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamling, William
McElhone, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mackie, John
Roper, John


Hattersley, Roy
Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Heffer, Eric S.
Maclennan, Robert
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Hooson, Emlyn
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Horam, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Sillars, James


Howell, Denis (Small Health)
Marks, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Huckfield, Leslie
Marquand, David
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Small, William


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


lrvine,Rt.Hn.SirArrhur(Edge Hill)
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David


Janner, Greville
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Strang, Gavin


John, Brynmor
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Taverne, Dick


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Murray, Ronald King



Jones, Dan, Burnley)
Ogden, Eric
Tinn, James


Jones, Rt.Hn.Elwyn(W. Ham, S.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
O'Malley, Brian
Torney, Tom


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Oram, Bert
Tuck, Raphael


Judd, Frank
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Kaufman, Gerald
Orme, Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin


Kelley, Richard
Oswald, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kerr, Russell
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wallace, George


Kinnock, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Watkins, David


Lambie, David
Pardoe, John
Weitzman, David


Lamond, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wellbeloved, James


Latham, Arthur
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lawson, George
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Leadbitter, Ted
Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pendry, Tom
Whitlock, William


Leonard, Dick
Pentland, Norman
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Lester, Miss Joan
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Prescott, John
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lewis, Kenneth (Carlisle)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Probert, Arthur
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Loughlin, Charles
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Mr. J. D. Concannon and


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Mr. Joseph Harper.

New Clause 13

EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN RULES

(1) As soon as practicable after the registrar has, in pursuance of section 82(3) of this Act, registered a change in the rules of an organisation, he shall examine the rules as they have effect in consequence of that change (in this section referred to as 'the amended rules'); and, if on such examination it appears to him that the amended rules are defective in any of the ways specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 71(1) of this Act, he shall serve on the organisation a notice indicating what alterations in the amended rules are needed for the purpose of remedying the defect.

(2) The provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of section 71 and the provisions of section 72 of this Act shall have effect in relation to a notice served under subsection (1) of this section as they have effect in relation to a

notice served under section 71(1) of this Act, as if in those provisions—

(a) any reference to a notice served under section 71(1) were a reference to a notice served under subsection (1) of this section. and
(b) any reference to the rules were a reference to the amended rules.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the rules of a registered organisation remain subject to the provisions of the Bill even if the rules are changed to meet the changing circumstances of the organisation. Clause 71 provides that soon after the organisation is registered the Registrar shall examine its rules and inform it of any ways in which they are


inconsistent with the guiding principles as set out in Clause 61 or Clause 65, as the case may be, and the requirements of Schedule 3, and he will allow the organisation a reasonable time in which to make the necessary alterations.
Once the Registrar has been able to approve the rules of an organisation and is content that they satisfy the Bill's requirements, it is unlikely that the organisation will intentionally adopt another set of rules which do not meet these requirements. It is, after all, in the interests of the organisation itself, and of its members, that it should have a clear and precise set of rules which safeguard the rights of members, and this is what the Registrar will be seeking to achieve.
However, organisations do need to alter their rules from time to time to meet changes in their circumstances; for example, to reflect changes in the decision-making structure. Any new rules adopted for this kind of reason might, inadvertently perhaps, reduce the rights of members or he inconsistent with other existing rules and, therefore, lead to a lack of clarity in the rules as a whole. It is necessary, therefore, to provide that alterations to rules and new rules adopted by a registered organisation shall be examined and approved by the Registrar in exactly the same way as are the rules which the organisation has at the time of registration.

The Clause is short, but it is important. I appreciate that the Opposition are against registration—we have debated the subject repeatedly. I do not accept their viewpoint but I realise their opposition. However, I am sure that, given registration, it will be seen that this is a common sense provision and one to which real objection cannot be taken. It makes the Bill logical. It is, therefore, important that any changes to rules which flow in due course shall be examined by the Registrar. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will accept the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read the Second time.

Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Peter Blaker: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you verify the timing at which to lock the doors?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have just verified the timing; the clock stuck. Therefore, I will call the Division again.

The House having divided: Ayes 271, Noes 221.

Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 15

PROVISIONS AS TO POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

(1) Any organisation of workers which requires any member to make any contribution to the political fund of a trade union unless he has at some time after the commencement of this Act expressed, by notice in writing, his willingness to contribute to that fund, shall not be eligible for registration as a trade union under this Act.

(2) Any organisation of employers, any of whose member firms make, after the commencement of this Act, a political contribution in any financial year, without the written consent of a majority of all the shareholders

eligible to vote, shall not be eligible for registration as an employers' federation under this Act.—[Mr. Pardoe.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Subsection (1) deals with contracting in and contracting out of the trade union levy, and subsection (2) has to do with the whole business of political contributions made by companies to the Conservative Party.
There will be some who feel that the Clause is unnecessarily restrictive, that


my intention is to try to limit the sums of money available to politics, and particularly to the Labour Party. I can only plead innocence to that charge. I do so as an ex-treasurer of a political party and one who has, therefore, had the sad task of trying to raise money for politics in Britain. My aim is in no sense to limit the amount of money available for politics. It is to expand that amount of money by setting forth an alternative, though one which, unfortunately, cannot be fully set forth within the terms of an amendment to this Bill.
My other purpose is to draw attention to the grave financial-political problem which all three parties represented in the House face. While there may be hon. Members on both sides, and especially among the Labour Opposition, who feel that this is an attack on what some Conservative propagandists have called Labour's Moscow gold, this is in fact not so. I part company from the fund raisers of the Conservative Party in my belief that Labour is undoubtedly the poorer of the two parties.

Mr. Dan Jones: Very much so.

Mr. Pardoe: Very much the poorer, as the hon. Gentleman says. What I am getting at here is that, even if one believes that the Conservative Party is built on untold sums of money, it is in possession of far smaller funds than it needs to do an adequate job in our political system. I shall prove that by reference to its most recent set of accounts, those ending March, 1970, and going back some little way.
9.15 p.m.
To turn for a moment to the Labour Party, I remind the Official Opposition that all is not for the best in the best of all possible worlds in the Labour Party's cash. I hope that hon. Members on this side, in considering the new Clause, will realise that something must be done. Even if they do not accept that the Bill as it stands must be done, they ought to accept that something must be done in this connection, for they are Members of Parliament of a party which is chronically short of cash, in a desperate financial position, and quite unable to measure up to the standards of a democratic Opposition in a modern democratic society.
Here, I throw a few quotations in to the debate. The Times of 25th November, 1970, reported that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is the treasurer of the Labour Party, had warned the Finance Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party that if the Government ran their full term of office the Labour Party could have a deficit of £500,000 by the next General Election. He said:
The annual deficit on the accounts for the year 1971 was estimated at £121,000, rising to £175,000 for 1972 and £250,000 for 1973.
These are substantial sums, considering that over the past few years the Labour Party's income has been of the order of £500,000. He added:
Income must be doubled in the next year or it should at least be raised to £750,000 a year.
That is the target, but even at £750,000 a year I believe that the Labour Party would be capable of doing far less under the present system than it should do as a militant Opposition party.
There are also the remarks of the Labour Party's fund-raising adviser, Mr. Oliver Stuchbury, when he resigned. The Times reported him as saying that
financially and organisationally the Party is in a critically unhappy position.
I am not surprised that he resigned. Virtually none of his proposals ever reached the National Executive, let alone got off the ground. He said:
Although an increase in the union affiliation fees is expected to see the Party safely through 1971, the organisers expect a further deficit in 1972 unless ways of raising funds can be found.
To translate this into the real problems of political organisation, perhaps it is as well to quote at this stage the views of Mr. Ronald Hayward, the National Agent of the Labour Party. Speaking at Taunton only a few days ago to the South-West Regional Council, he said:
You are living in cloud cuckooland. It is time the kidology stopped.
He said that at the end of this year, not taking into account any increased postal charges, the party would have a deficit of £82,000, adding,
If that deficit runs for the next four years at that rate and in the year of the General Election assuming that the Government runs its full course, we shall be £250,000 in the red.


Those are just some recent comments about the major Opposition party's finances. As I pointed out in two very detailed articles in The Times in 1969, not only the Labour Party but the Conservative Party is short of money. Those of us who live in the penury of the Liberal Party often look with covetous eyes at the huge golden coffers of Smith Square and wonder what it does with all the money.

Mr. David Steel: Does my hon. Friend agree that in accordance with the customs of the House he should declare his interest an an ex-treasurer of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Pardoe: If my hon. Friend had forsaken his tournedos Rossini as early as I did he would have been present to hear me say that. Perhaps I should also declare my interest as a contributor to the Liberal Party.
It is not just the Labour and Liberal Parties that are chronically short of cash. In its latest accounts, for the year 1970, the Conservative Party states quite clearly that its income has fallen substantially short of expenditure, and the same was true of the year ended 31st March, 1969.

Mr. James Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the Conservative Party funds at constituency level? Does he know that in one constituency in Scotland two employers paid the Conservative candidate's total General Election expenses? Should not that money be added to the national fund of the Conservative Party?

Mr. Pardoe: Yes, indeed. It is extremely difficult to make an accurate assessment of exactly what any party's funds are—any party. I have tried to make an estimate in the past. There are substantial undercover contributions to the Labour Party by the trade unions, and, for all I know, even by certain organisations to the Liberal Party at constituency level. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point I should like to quote from a pamphlet produced by the Conservative Central Office, which sets out what it thinks is an ideal budget for a local constituency party. It amounts to about £5,570. I think my hon. Friend

would agree that that is a lot of money by our standards. Of course, it is not a lot of money by the standards of the North Cornwall Liberal Association, but it is by the standards of most Liberal Parties and of most Labour Parties.
When one breaks the figure down into the recommended expenditure, as is done in the leaflet, one sees that a very large part of it goes on administration and in the contribution to headquarters. The amount available for political in-fighting and political education at local level is ludicrously small. Whether these sums are available at local constituency level, and from whatever source they are available, and whether they are available to the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Party, the total amount of money available to democracy in this country is far too little.
What is interesting is that this is not so in other countries. Dictators spend vast sums shoring up their own system. Is it too much to ask of British democrats that they should spend more than the price of a packet of cigarettes to make their system functiion properly? Mr. Ronald J. Heidenheimer, in his, "Comparative Party Finance", has devised a formula which links political expenditure to the number of votes cast and the average hourly wage. He shows that the index of expenditure against Britain is 0·64; in Germany, it is 0·95; in the United States, it is 1·12; in India, it is 1·25. We then come right up to countries like Italy, where it is 4·5, the Philippines, where it is 16, and Israel—the mostest—where it is 20·5 per cent. I should add that these figures are from the early 1960s. In other words, Israel is spending on its political system per head of the population, in relation to its hourly wage rate and the number of votes cast, very nearly 200 per cent. above the British. This does not seem to be a satisfactory way of conducting our politics.
I believe, from a study of these figures, that we have to change the system in some way, and that brings me to the specific proposal in the new Clause. Unfortunately, I must admit that the terms of the new Clause would undoubtedly restrict the amount of money, but it would restrict it because it would force the Labour Party to derive the bulk of its funds from those trade


union members who were actually prepared—ideologically prepared, presumably—to go out and sign a form which said, "I will give my political contributions to the Labour Party." That may be most unwelcome to many members of the Labour Party, but if they feel that the present system is affording them the kind of finance they need to run a modern political party they are, as Mr. Hayward said, living in cloud cuckooland. They have not enough to run a penny-farthing machine—and they lost the last Election on postal votes alone. If they had had the amount of money they ought to have to run a modern political party, they would not have lost the last election.
The only reason we are debating this Bill is, presumably, that the Labour Party lost the last election. One might be cynical, of course, and say that the reason we are debating it is that they left it to the Conservative Party to introduce it, which they would not have done if they had had funds independent of their trade union connections. I maintain that, whatever the total amount of money available for politics in Britain, it is wrong for any political party, or for both major political parties, to be dependent on a vested interest to produce the cash.
The Labour Party is so dependent on the trade union connection for its money because of the incredible feebleness of its local constituency parties. Over 85 per cent. of its money has to come from the trade unions. If it had to depend solely on its contributions from the constituencies and from individual contributors, the money available to it would be less than the amount available to the Liberal Party from similar sources, which shows how dangerous this all is.

Mr. Denis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that he should declare his interest as onetime treasurer of the Liberal Party. In view of the fact that he is talking about trade union vested interests, should not he declare his interest in respect of the National Association of Schoolmasters, from which he receives a retainer of £350 a year?

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I receive a retainer of £400. It is not a bad case, but it is possible to divine because the Liberal Party keeps a record in the Chief Whip's office and it

is there for all to see. I have declared that interest in a large number of debates in the House. I did not appreciate that what I get from the N.A.S. was directly relevant to the political fund, but I do not deny it. In fact, from time to time in this House I have gloried in the fact that I derive income from a trade union source.

Mr. David Steel: While the Liberal Party publishes such interests, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party has followed suit.

Mr. Pardoe: The Liberal Party keeps an open register of all its vested interests. If anyone wants to see which trade unions I advise—

Mr. Skinner: God help them!

Mr. Pardoe: —they can easily find out. Despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, those unions have been remarkable in increasing their membership. But I will not get sidetracked into that aspect. I apologise to the hon. Member for not declaring my interest to him. I did not know that I had an interest in this debate in such terms.

Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member interrupted me; I did not interrupt him.
It is true that the Bill would restrict income, because if the Labour Party were to rely entirely on the contributions of those who physically sign a form to say that they want to contribute, it might get much less money than it now gets. Similarly, I strongly suspect that if the Conservative Party had to depend on the wishes of the shareholders of the companies which subscribe to it, it, too, would derive a much smaller income.
I have looked at the system carefully to see why the suggested alternative is necessary. The system ensures that individual giving is made easy for the individual. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party greatly depend on giving because of the sheer difficulty of raising individual contributions. Every party treasurer does these calculations in his bath. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said the other day that every Labour supporter


should give a day's wages to the Labour Party. We had the 10-bob Tories of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) when he was Chairman of the Conservative Party. The General Secretary of the Labour Party, Sir Harry Nicholas, suggested £5 per Labour Party member. That follows the genre of the party treasurer who sits in his bath and conjures up figures saying, "If only everybody would give me the price of a pint of beer once a week, all my problems would be solved".
The problem is the sheer difficulty of collecting the money, and so the Labour Party inevitably collects its money from the trade unions and 65 per cent. of the Conservative Party's money comes in contributions—I cannot swear to the figures for 1970, because I have not yet had time to do them, but that was the amount for 1969.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has clearly gone into this matter with considerable care. No doubt he will concede that in the average constituency the Conservative association probably collects more by door-to-door collection from individual members of the party than does any other party.

Mr. Pardoe: What the Conservative Party collects from its members is a moot point. It is difficult to assess it exactly. Research conducted by the Conservative Central Office in 1967 showed that about 15 per cent. of Conservative Party supporters, those who said, "I would vote for the Conservative Party if there were a General Election tomorrow", said that they contributed to the party and about one-third of all Conservative supporters said that they would contribute if asked.
The problem is the asking. The Conservative Party is so dependent on its big business contributions and the Labour Party so dependent on its trade union contributions because of the difficulty of asking. That is why I should like the Government to step in, although not to provide money from the tax revenue as such to political parties. The idea of a Government subsidy to political parties raises a feeling of horror in this country, although we ought to admit that in our democracy substantial sums are now paid to it by the Government. The cost of the returning officer's expenses, of

the electoral register and of the postal ballot papers runs into millions of pounds and this money must be raised under the American system by individual parties and individual contributions. The State is already paying a substantial slice of the cost of elections partly through the free post, partly by free television and by other methods. If we could devise a system which enabled the individual to contribute to a political party through a State system, it would free us from the problem of the over-dependence of our two major parties on their vested interests.
Let us not get this wrong. It is not universal in the world that political parties depend on vested interests. The Canadian political parties do not depend on vested interests for their political funds. The majority of companies in America contribute to both major political parties. Some contribute to all three. The majority of Canadian trade unions contribute to both political parties.

Mr. Dan Jones: What is the difference between them?

Mr. Pardoe: I have no doubt that Canadians believe passionately that there is a difference between Trudeau and the other mob.

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that we are discussing the Industrial Relations Bill and not the Political Relations Bill?

Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman has, I suppose, virtually raised a point of order which perhaps—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order which was passing through my mind.

Mr. Pardoe: That does not entirely surprise me, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty of discussing party finances in the House is extreme, as any hon. Member who tries to raise the issue will find.
The new Clause clearly states that it would be a qualification for registration that a trade union should behave in the way referred to in the Clause—that it should opt for contracting in rather than contracting out. It states in the second part that no employers' association could exist if one of its members refused to toe the line and give its shareholders an option on whether they wanted to contribute to a political party. I accept


that these two things are not equivalent and exactly comparable.
However, the major point of the new Clause is that the principle of contracting in rather than contracting out is right, not only for trade unions and the Labour Party but for shareholders and the companies which contribute to the Conservative Party. Democracy in this country would be far healthier if that system were accepted and if the two major parties ceased to have such a close financial connection with their vested interests group. Political parties in other countries already function under this system. There is no reason to suppose that our political parties would not be able to do so.
I hope that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) and his colleagues realise that their party is in desperate financial trouble and is doing far less than the proper job of opposition because it is in financial trouble. One of the main reasons why the Government have come to power with a series of half-baked, half-thought-out policies to put into practice is that they did not have the funds capable of setting up a proper and adequately serviced research department. This situation is dangerous in opposition and in government.
This is a fundamental problem of British democracy which we should solve. Whether we can solve it as a result of a debate on a new Clause to the Industrial Relations Bill is open to question. But if the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is not open to question is whether the hon. Gentleman can continue with this line. He must stick to the new Clause.

Mr. Pardoe: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it was clear that my remarks had reached their peroration. I was trying to say that, although the Clause has in the view of some people undoubted disadvantages, to our way of thinking it accepts the basic principle which should be enshrined in any democratic political financing system, which is that individuals should be given the right to contract in rather than to contract out and that individual shareholders should be given the right to say whether their company should contribute to a political party.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: We are having a slight digression from the main argument about the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on his ingenuity on managing with the Clause to raise this subject for debate. I should like to have a longer debate on this subject at another time, and it might have been more appropriate to have done so. However, we have the time and we might as well spend it discussing the Clause.
I have much sympathy with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the financing of political parties and political activities in Britain, but where the Clause falls down is that, having argued that all three political parties are desperately short of money, the Clause would, if it were added to the Bill, make them even more short of money and thus bring them up against the reality of the need to finance themselves in a different way. This adds fuel to the point that we need a different approach to this outside the terms of the Bill.
The Clause falls down because, in addition to its shortcoming of reducing the money which would be available to political parties, it seems also to question whether politics is a legitimate activity for trade unions to engage in on behalf of their members by supporting a political party and for a company to embark on on behalf of its interests. I question this approach.
Whatever other arrangements we were to come to about the financing of political activities, I do not believe that it is not a legitimate activity for a company or for a trade union to support a political party if it believes that it is in the interests of that company or that union to do so.
The basic principles of contracting in and contracting out have been discussed for a long time, certainly for as long as I have been involved in politics. It has been a matter for discussion within my party whether members of trade unions should have to contract in or contract out of the political levy. I have always resisted the idea that the Conservative Party ought to amend the law in this way. In any case, I believe that it would boomerang if the Conservative Party sought to do so.
The Labour Party, with its act of political spite, or what it imagined to be an act of political spite, in forcing the disclosure of company contributions led to a situation in which the Conservative Party raised more money in the following year than it had ever done before in its history. This shows how these things can rebound.
Partly because it would boomerang, and partly because I believe that it is a legitimate activity for a trade union to be able to support a political party if it believes that it is in the interests of its members to do so, I have always resisted this change.
Whether it is in the interests of the trade union movement to support almost exclusively one political party rather than to support different candidates in different constituencies who they think have an interest in trade union matters is another question and one which the trade unions alone can decide. Now that under the terms of the Bill the closed shop has been virtually abolished except for very narrow exemptions which we have allowed, the whole question of contracting in and contracting out becomes much less serious and much less fundamental.

9.45 p.m.

As for companies, of course, a shareholder has a way out in that, if he does not like the company in which he holds shares subscribing to the Conservative Party or any other fund, he can sell his shares and invest in another company. Some hon. Members hold strong feelings about activities of firms which have interests in other parts of the world. If a shareholder in such a firm feels sufficiently strongly about its policy, he may even sell his shares at a loss, and the financial loss resulting will probably not influence his decision.
In my view, this Clause is not a serious attempt to overcome the problem of financing political parties and controlling their expenditure. We have absurdly stringent controls on expenditure at local constituency level, but no control over the national expenditure of a party. That has always seemed to me to be an immense anomaly.

However, there is an alternative solution to the one put forward by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. It is one which I understand is being considered seriously in the United States. Some sort of subvention might be made to the par-

ties, possibly based on their seat strength in this House—

Mr. Gower: Is not there a serious danger that that will discourage the emergence of new political parties and give a wrong persistence in the existence of an older party?

Mr. Scott: This is straying from the new Clause. If it discouraged the emergence of new political parties, it would be only a slight extra disincentive. Our whole political system operates against not only the creation of new parties but even the resurgence of old parties which have fallen on hard times.
I cannot support the Clause. It is not that I do not believe that the question of financing political activities is a serious one to which we as a democracy should turn our minds. It is that I do not think that the Clause goes any way towards it. It makes the situation worse rather than better. For that reason, while I appreciate the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, I shall have to vote against the Second Reading of his Clause if it goes to a Division.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: It is remarkable that we should have to resort to these sorts of tactics on an Industrial Relations Bill in order to debate a matter like this. I appreciate that the Liberal Party has few opportunities to obtain publicity, but it seems to manage very well in terms of its size. It is understandable that the leader of the party has to use a party political broadcast to hold out the begging bowl and ask his audience to send him £1.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) divulged his sponsorship and his vested interests. I will do the same. I am a member of the Draughtmen's and Allied Technicians' Association, which pays my constituency £420 a year. I ask hon. Members to note that it does not pay me. The money goes to the constituency. It was said that the schoolmasters' association paid the hon. Gentleman. In the case of trade union Members, none of them gets a penny from his union. The money is paid directly to the constituencies.
If anyone thinks that it is possible to run a constituency on £420 a year, he has another think coming. I have a full-time agent and, together with premises and attendant expenses, the constituency


costs between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Clearly, £420 cannot cover the expenses of a constituency like mine. Let us put the matter into its proper proportion.

Mr. Gower: Is not it a fact, however, that the N.U.T., for example, assists hon. Members on both sides in much the same manner as that described by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)?

Mr. Ashton: That is probably true. However, I was talking about our respective sponsorships.
I want to take up a point which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North raised about contracting in. Contracting in already exists. Whenever a man joins a union, in effect he contracts in. He is given a form which says that the subscriptions are so much a week and that it will be a penny a week if he wishes to pay the political levy. At the time of joining a union a man can decide whether to contract in or not. Incidentally, in my trade union only 38 per cent. of the membership pay the political levy. I think that if we changed the system that percentage would not alter very much. The average trade unionist is no fool. When he joins the union and is told that it is so much extra to pay the political levy, he decides then whether to contract in or out.

Mr. Russell Johnston: If it is a matter of such small import, why did the Labour Party when in power between 1945 and 1951 bother to change the law?

Mr. Ashton: We bothered to change the law because the unions thought that it would be better from an administrative point of view to reverse the procedure. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that trade unionists never contract out. Throughout discussions on the Bill an atmosphere seems to have been created that trade unionists are fools, morons and mugs who do what their shop stewards tell them to do, just like a bunch of sheep—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are not. Many people disagreed with the strike last Thursday, while accepting that it was within the unions' rules to strike. There is a lot of talk about ballots before strikes. No union can ask its members to come out on strike if it is breaking the rules. If

the rules say that there must be a ballot then they can only be changed at annual conference.
If a trade unionist does not like what the Labour Party is doing, he can contract out of paying the political levy. Many trade unionists contract out. In fact, 2,000 members of my union contracted out when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was making his famous river Tiber flowing with much blood speech of two or three years ago. They may have thought that he was right. He may have conned them all the way down the line. I do not dispute this. But most of them joined again and contracted in about six months afterwards.
This is the way things go. Percentages go up and down. The average political levy paying member is no fool. He takes all these things into account when deciding whether to contract in or out. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North would find that if these proposals were carried out they would not make one per cent. difference. They never have. There have been ups and downs over many years concerning the percentage of union members who contract in or out. The percentage varies very little. There are ebbs and flows of 2 to 3 per cent., but in the main the average stays about the same.
The major parties have a much better system than that used by Lloyd George when he used to sell honours. He used to tout around saying, "For £10,000 I will give you a knighthood".

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot get on to the sale of honours.

Mr. Ashton: I should like to point out some of the other political purposes for which trade union funds are used. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North seems to have the impression that if a trade union collects a penny from each member as political levy it automatically goes to the Labour Party. It does not. The funds collected as political levy by trade unions are retained by them. Those funds do not go directly to the Labour Party.
If a trade union wishes to affiliate to the Labour Party then a proportion of that penny a week which is collected is retained by the branch. Not all unions are affiliated. The N.U.T., which the hon.


Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) mentioned, N.A.L.G.O. and such unions might be affiliated to the T.U.C. and pay their affiliation fees, but they are not affiliated to the Labour Party. However, they do have a political fund.
My union, which collects political levies on the percentage of its members, retains that fund. In most constituency and union affiliates to the local Labour Party, it is left to the local branch. The head office does not say to the union branch in Bournemouth, "Affiliate to the Bournemouth Labour Party". The branch itself chooses whether to affiliate or not. If it affiliates, then, as I say, a proportion of that penny a week which is collected is retained by the branch.
The hon. Member said that these things are not published, but they are. It is common knowledge in my union that perhaps only half the money collected for the political levy actually goes to the Labour Party. The other half is retained and given to many other organisations, like Shelter, for instance.

Mr. Orme: Would my hon. Friend not agree also that many of the educational activities undertaken by unions—political education, but covering a wide field—which involve members of all political persuasions, are carried out by unions from this fund?

Mr. Ashton: This is true. We welcome this debate to clear up many false assumptions made by the Press. If we had had more notice, I could have read out a list of the political contributions made by many unions. But only 50 per cent. goes to the Labour Party. Much of the rest goes to political parties abroad, fighting for their existence in countries like Greece—

Mr. Orme: Or South Africa.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, South Africa, where donations are made to people involved in politics.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member said about the financing of politics. I have a personal theory that Members of Parliament should be paid a fixed sum to help with constituency work. Many of us need to employ an agent and a typist and to hire an office, and that is for the benefit of Parliament and the public, and not for the benefit of politics. Many hon. Members on our side,

and perhaps in the Conservative Party, have to pay out of their own pockets to rent an office or a school where constituents can come to see them.
Hon. Members on this side have to make a contribution out of their own pockets to party funds, which is not morally right but is often necessary. It is probably the same for hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a very interesting point, for which I think there may be a lot of sympathy, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to the new Clause.

Mr. Ashton: I take the point, Mr. Speaker.
This question of sponsorship by unions and of funds in general should be examined further by a Select Committee. As the Liberals say, they divulge their interests. I would divulge mine, as would many on this side of the House, and this would remove the continual sniping. But I am certain that reducing the funds of the other two parties to the level of the Liberal Party, or to the state at which we were dependent on knocking on doors and begging sixpences to run a political campaign or an election, would not benefit the country or elections. It might be more democratic, as the hon. Member said, and there are some constituencies which could manage without it, but in the long run, this suggestion would do politics no good at all.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Grylls: On the face of it, new Clause 15 is attractive and I agree with many of the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said about it. On the surface, it might seem to many people that there was justice on the side of making people have to opt in rather than out. But there is sometimes unjustified criticism of the way in which unions use their political funds, but they are already under considerable control under the 1913 Act. They have to have a ballot before they can support a parliamentary candidate or similar political activities.
But many people think that contracting out would probably be fairer. History has been ambivalent. After the General Strike, it was made necessary for people to contract in to the political levy rather


than out of it. As hon. Members opposite have said, in 1946 the then Labour Government reversed the process, and it was entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) say that that change was made for administrative convenience. The House must draw its own conclusion about that.
I believe that there would be pressure on the Government to look again at this point if political strikes against the Government were allowed to continue and get out of control. It would be unfortunate if the sort of strike we saw on Thursday against the Bill were to be repeated, but the proposal in the new Clause would receive more support from the public as a whole. I therefore hope that the trade union extremist minority which has engaged in these political strikes will draw the lesson.

Mr. James Tinn: Will the hon. Member tell the House what form of protest against this legislation is legitimate? Political strikes are apparently ruled out, speeches from this side have been criticised, as has voting through the night—all these things are said to be wrong: what are we supposed to do against the Bill?

Mr. Grylls: Not many on this side have criticised the Opposition for making us vote throughout the night. That is a right which the Opposition have. And they have an absolute right in this House to put forward their case, and no one on this side has ever denied that right. What we have criticised and, I believe, will continue to criticise, is the action of trade union militants, without any question of a ballot, putting trade unionists under the pressure of having to suffer fines or even losing their jobs for refusing to go on one-day political strikes against, for example, this Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true, but I do not think that it is in order on this Clause.

Mr. Grylls: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
There is something in what was said by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in its evidence to the Donovan Commission—that it would be a good and fair idea that the trade union membership application form should make it perfectly

clear that if applicants did not wish to contribute to the political levy they could opt out from doing so. That seems to be an attractive idea.
Subsection (2) refers, presumably, to contributions made to the Tory Party by employers. It suggests that there should be a ballot, as it were, of shareholders before any such money was handed over to the Tory Party, or it may well be—

Sir Edward Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that at some company levels substantial sums are manifestly contributed to the Labour Party? Contributions are not made only to the Conservative Party.

Mr. Grylls: It would be very rash for anyone to say that all money donated by companies automatically went to the Tory Party. It is quite possible that money is given to the Liberal Party, and perhaps to such organisations as the Fabian Society as well.
If one accepted the proposal in subsection (2) and left the matter entirely in the hands of shareholders, a lather strange thing would happen. In a number of big public companies where large blocks of shares are owned by institution funds and by pension funds we would have the managers of those funds taking, as it were, a political decision, which would be very unfortunate.
The directors of companies should be free to make the decisions which they consider are in the best interests of their companies and shareholders. If the decisions they make are, in the opinion of the shareholders, not the right decisions, then they have the option of attending annual general meetings and sacking the directors. Directors should be free, within the law, to take whatever decisions they believe are best. If they feel, for example, that a Labour Government would be to their advantage, they should be free to make contributions to the funds of that party.
There is a strange quirk here. If the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite were accepted and if it were left to shareholders to decide what amount should be contributed to which political party, the Conservative Party would probably receive more, because I concede that the vast majority of shareholders are probably sympathetic to Conservative policies.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tell that to the Rolls-Royce shareholders.

Mr. Grylls: Many directors have probably held back from giving money to the Conservative Party or any other party because they do not want to become involved in politics. Despite these remarks, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South that it would be useful for the House to have a general debate on this subject. However, it is not convenient to have such a debate at this stage.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I support the new Clause for reasons other than those so far advanced. It is relevant to the Bill and to the debate which has occupied so much of our time in recent weeks if for no other reason than the saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
It is significant that since the General Election the big debates have not been about the cut-down in the social services or the changes that have taken place in the social atmosphere of the nation but about the basis of industrial relations. It is, therefore, important to consider the new Clause in that light and to ask why the Labour Party has particularly selected industrial relations for the big debate when the people generally are far more interested in, for example, cuts in the social services and the different approach to the social services which the Government have announced.
First and foremost, we must remember that the Labour Party is the political arm of the trade union movement—[Interruption.]—which subscribes to the funds of the party. If any Labour hon. Member wishes to be perfectly honest, he will not only agree with that but will not support the new Clause because if it were adopted, and if contracting in came about instead contracting out, the Labour Party could not function in the way it does.

Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has committed the sin of the undistributed middle, as it were. The point is not our selecting this Bill for attack. The Government are, by the Measure, forcing people to accept future alterations and cuts in various services in such a way that they will not be able to demonstrate against those cuts. In other words, we are fighting the Bill not just for the sake

of putting up a fight but to strengthen, rather than weaken, as the Bill would do, the ability of the working class to put up a fight.

Mr. Hooson: Nevertheless, the Labour Party is the political arm of the trade union movement, just as the Tory Party is largely the political arm of capital. [Interruption.] We are discussing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. I am having some difficulty at the moment.

Mr. Hooson: I am glad that you do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A modicum of politeness is expected, even from the Chair.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful for those small crumbs of comfort. As I was saying before I was interrupted—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Chair never interrupts.

Mr. Hooson: I was not referring to the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have to face reality. One of the great problems is that the country is split between "them" and "us" in the sense that the cleavage between capital and labour is becoming deeper because both capital and labour are concentrating on having a political arm as an extension of their industrial base. It can be argued the other way, that the trade unions are the industrial arm of the Labour Party and that the employers' associations are the industrial arm of the Tory Party.
We are discussing something that goes to the very root of our industrial relations, namely the enormous vested interest that has built up over the years. Whatever the merits of the case, there is a blind attitude towards industrial relations, governed to a degree by the vested interests already established.
I understand perfectly the Labour Party attitude towards contracting in. If in 1906 the Liberals had not allowed contracting out as opposed to contracting in, when the balance of power was completely in favour of capital and against labour, the Labour Party could never have built up its base in the first place. It would have been very difficult to do it then. But the situation today is totally different. We are in an educated country


where earnings are very much higher and where the disparity between the power of labour and the power of capital is nothing like what it was in those days.

Sir E. Brown: rose—

Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. I understand the attitude of the Labour Party, which does not want contracting in because it fears that with contracting in, the party could not exist on the base that it does today.
I want to turn attention not so much to contracting in and contracting out, which has been argued so often over the years, but to the position of the Conservative Party, because they are the people who have maintained in the Bill that they are concerned with the rights of the individual. They have said that we need more democracy, that the group approach is wrong basically and that it is time to redress the balance between the power of the group and that of the individual.
How can they justify their attitude towards the Amendment and say that they are now in favour of contracting in as opposed to contracting out? That is what they are saying in reply to the Amendment. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. To get the kind of State in which we have true democracy, in which a man is not forced to support what the majority want and is entitled to make his own political contribution, why should he be required by a trade union simply to pay the political levy, the result being that all are paying for the politics of the majority? It also follows that it must be wrong for directors to decide which political party should receive contributions from limited companies. Why should they be allowed to decide this? Why should not shareholders, very often involved in charities, and so on, be consulted on political contributions to the Tory Party?
While we have a situation in which 80 per cent. of Labour Party funds come from the trade unions, the trade unions will control the thinking and acting of the Labour Party. While 65 per cent. of Tory Party funds come from big industry, big industry will control the thinking and acting of the Tory Party.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: Nonsense.

Mr. Hooson: Of course it is true. The two major parties have a joint vested interest in opposing this democratic Amendment which would ensure that democracy would work and no longer would people be compelled to contribute to something to which they do not subscribe.

Mr. Grylls: It is nonsense to say that we are not concerned with the rights of individuals. I tried to make it absolutely clear that I favoured the idea that anyone applying to join a trade union should be able to contract out and that that right should be printed on the application form. That is protecting the rights of the individual.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member no doubt tried to make it absolutely clear, but his effort was a total failure. I could not follow it at all. Any realistic trade union member on this side of the House will know that with contracting in, as opposed to contracting out, the Labour Party would be in the greatest difficulty.

Mr. Bidwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in practice his argument is contradictory? There appear to be a lot of people who have contracted out of the Liberal Party during the last 20 years.

Mr. Hooson: I will tell the hon. Member a fact, which is that more people contribute individually to the Liberal Party than individually contribute to the Labour Party. The Liberal Party raises more funds voluntarily than does the Labour Party.
The new Clause goes to the root of the evil whereby the country is getting more and more divided between capital and labour, and that will continue while we have a financial political control over the industrial aims of the political parties.

Mr. Kinsey: We have just heard the third vested interest to speak in the debate, and the debate has been reduced to a sordid political squabble. I am disappointed that the Liberals, who have shown good sense and whose speeches I have admired in these debates should have introduced this topic, which is irrelevant to the matters we are discussing. The Liberals have introduced a jarring political note of a financial nature. This shows the total incomprehension of the mover of the Amendment.
We appreciate that there is a political divide, but no political note of financial interest has until now been introduced—

Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman still under the impression that the Bill is a non-political Bill?

Mr. Kinsey: I said that the Liberals had introduced a jarring political note on a financial basis which has not so far been brought in. So far a great political issue has divided us, but it has not been connected with finance.
It would have been easy for the Government to have introduced a Clause concerned with contracting out or contracting in had they wished to do so. That the Government have not done so is an indication of their good intentions. With so much still to discuss, it is a pity that we should have a discussion about the political funds of the parties. I do not know what the country will think about introducing this subject at this time. It is wrong that we should be debating the political levy when we should be dealing with much more nationally important issues.
It is wrong that the trade unions should be the source of contributions for one political party when the democratic makeup of the membership of trade unions is a cross-section of all parties, and, what is more, since we are a democratic nation, a cross-section of a changing pattern of political thought.
But we should not be talking about that tonight, and. I am only sorry that such matters have been introduced. I suppose that, in one sense, my whole political being would urge me to support the new Clause, but I reject it as wrong and out of context with the great matters which we are debating now. This House should be rising above such petty party matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It really should. This is a bigger discussion than that. The Bill is designed to improve industrial relations. It will be one of the greatest Measures which the House has passed, and it is wrong to downgrade it by politically motivated spite.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we began the debate on this new Clause at five minutes past nine, and

that there are many other matters which the House would wish to discuss.

Mr. Buchan: I promise to be brief, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party has gone wrong because it has not read its own new Clause. It says that unless people are allowed to contract out—this is not a debate about contracting in or contracting out—a trade union would not be allowed to register under the Bill. But what on earth makes the Liberal Party think that trade unions want to register? It seems ridiculous. The Liberal bench have produced a paper tiger, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) do not understand what the last three months of debate have been about. That is their first gross error.
Their second error is even more serious, that is, their curious equating of the trade union movement, with its individual members, with the monied interests of the Tory Party. There is no relationship. On the one hand, it is a question of cash, of big finance—£100,000 from the brewers, £100.000 from the ironmasters, and so on. There is no equivalence between that and the individual members of the trade union movement. The one is an expression of aggressive power, power which is used by the faceless men in the board rooms, for instance, the power to hire and fire. That is where the money comes from, and it is used to strengthen that power.

Mr. Scott: rose—

Mr. Buchan: I will give way in a moment.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Buchan: I have some respect for the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and I will give way to him. On the other hand, there are the activities of the trade unions, which are widely known to everyone. Much has been said about big business being the political arm of the Tory Party, equating that somehow with the concept of the trade unions as the industrial arm of the Labour Party. Again the analogy is totally false.
The trade unions are composed of individuals, as is the Labour Party. It is another method of organisation among exactly the same people within our move-


ment. There is no difference between Johnnie Smith who attends the Labour Party conference on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Johnnie Smith who attends on behalf of his local Labour Party. [Interruption.] If there is no difference, there is no point in setting them up in different wings. We are dealing with human beings. This is where the Liberal Party is wrong. The leader of the Liberal Party, who is muttering away—no doubt, it is one of his famous impressions—does not understand that we are dealing in our movement with human beings, and, on the other side, with the power which comes from cash.

Mr. Scott: If the right to hire and fire is the root of the power of those who are supposed to control the Conservative Party, is it not strange that within this Bill the Conservative Party, for the first time in the history of industrial relations, is providing for appeals against unfair dismissal?

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry I gave way, because the hon. Gentleman has not understood the argument. We are saying that the apparent equality created in the two subsections is no equality, that on the one hand the Clause is concerned with a small number of people with a great deal of power and on the other with a large number of individuals whose only power is in the fact that they come together to be organised. That is the fundamental difference.
The second difference which I was pointing out when the hon. Gentleman intervened was the enormous power given to a small number of people by their wealth. Through the power of hire and

fire, they can control the lives of individual people, whose power is made up by getting together in their organisations. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Paddington, South to suggest—the backwoodsmen behind him would be astonished to hear it—that what the Bill tries to do is to protect the rights of the workers against the type of people who have been financing the Tory Party. When we mention trigger words like "shop steward", we hear Tory backbenchers baying. There is no love for the ordinary people expressed by them. The hon. Gentleman is an honest lad. As I have told him before, he should give that gang up.
It is not a question in the Clause, any more than in the Bill, of the problem of contracting out or contracting in. As the months have gone by, the people have realised the enormity inherent in the Bill and the fantastic infringement of individual liberty it brings about. They have realised that one of the safeguards against the faceless ones whose contributions to the Tory Party we saw being totted up before, during and after the election, is precisely the right to form their protective organisations, whether through a political party or a trade union, and to come together to defend their common rights against the power of the Tory Party and their supporters.
It is sad to find the Liberal Party throwing itself into this vacuum of thought. They should think back to their radical past. They should not worry about one or two black spots in Lloyd George's record, with the sale of honours and so on, but should think back to that past and join in the real fight in this country, which is against the Tory Party.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not want to be rude to the Liberals, who up to now have shown a good deal of political acumen in the way in which they have judged the Bill and have voted in the Division Lobby. Some of the speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have been among the best in our series of debates. Hon. Members will agree about that, even if they do not agree with the philosophy which he expounded.
The speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) proved that the proposed new Clause had very little to do with the Bill. At times, it seemed almost tantamount to special pleading. They say that those who are obsessed with money are often near bankruptcy. I do not know whether that is the Liberal Party situation, but it has undergone a good deal of financial difficulty. If that is the situation, I sympathise with it, because the hon. Gentleman made the point—and it was one of the few things he said with which I agree—that in reality all political parties are fairly poor, particularly compared with those in other countries. Perhaps we should do something about that.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not seeking to limit the funds available to political parties. There is a good deal of liberal illogicality about that, because, apart from what the second part of his proposed Clause would do, there would certainly be a severe limitation on the Labour Party's funds if it came into operation.
I agree with the shrewd observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). In some ways we have discussed this matter rather superficially, but it is healthy for a democracy that properly-established political parties should have reasonably good incomes to keep them efficient. It is right that we should have an efficient Government party and an efficient Opposition party and also minority parties like the Liberal Party. It would be a sad day for democracy if one or more of the political parties went more or less out of politics because of insufficient funds. It is a point that we should all bear in mind.
10.30 p.m.
A number of hon. Members referred to company contributions. One of my hon. Friends referred to what he called the political spite of the Labour Government in making necessary disclosure of the political contributions of limited companies. I do not know whether it was political spite, but the Labour Government did us a good turn because donations have gone up since then. Fortunately, companies have had the courage of their convictions and have been able to say, "This money has been made freely available to a political end." The information has to be shown in the annual report and it is open to any shareholder who disagrees to move his shares to another company. Quite often, the companies which make these donations are efficient and doing very well, so the man who sells his shares may well be penalising himself.
There is an even bigger point about this. The individual shareholders can attend the annual meeting and challenge the decision. I have seen it done. It happened to be a member of the Liberal Party who did it. She declared herself to be a Liberal and said she wished that the Liberal Party could have a donation from the company. There is nothing wrong in that. It is open to any individual shareholder to make his protest at the right time.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman says that companies have had a good return for their investments in the Tory Party through the return of a Tory Government. Would he extend that principle also to the brewers, who gave £100,000 and are now getting State pubs flogged to them?

Mr. Smith: I am coming to that point. I was saying that the individual shareholder is free to opt out if he disagrees with a political donation. It is a judgment of management as to whether a company should make a donation, and I believe that the majority of the companies which make contributions do so because they accept that the country and industry will be more efficiently run by a Conservative Government and that it is obviously in the interests of industry that there should be a Conservative Government. It is a matter of judgment. Hon.


Members opposite think it is the wrong judgment; I think it is the right judgment. The individual shareholder can contract out if he wishes.
I would like to see more trade unionists contributing to Conservative Party funds. There are more Tory voters and supporters among trade unionists than hon. Members opposite sometimes suspect. There is a contentious point on the question of whether there should be contracting in or contracting out. I hope that as time goes on more and more people will contract out. It is their democratic right to do so.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that individual shareholders can contract out of paying political donations to the Conservative Party. How can a shareholder in a unit trust contract out? How can a local authority superannuation fund contract out? How can all the other institutional shareholders —sometimes trade union superannuation funds—contract out from paying political contributions to the Tory Party in these circumstances, even though it is in opposition to the principles they hold?

Mr. Smith: I have explained that the individual can sell his shares. But by doing so he may be penalising himself because if it is a flourishing and successful company it will not be to his advantage to sell. I say that there is nothing to stop trade unionists contributing to the Tory Party or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party. There is nothing to stop companies from contributing to the Labour Party or even to the Liberal Party if they can be persuaded to do so. It is important that there should be a free flow of donations to all the various parties from those who are prepared to support them and who think that they can do a good job in a democracy.
We must resist the new Clause. It is the Government's view that political fund issues are unconnected with industrial relations and should therefore not be dealt with in the Bill. The Bill makes only marginal changes in the procedure set out in the 1913 Act for safeguarding the rights of members. I appreciate and understand the arguments of the Liberal Parts as a publicity exercise, and I do not criticise them for that, but this is not the way in which to tackle the problem.
We are grateful for the light relief which Liberal Members have provided. For those of us who have toiled on the Bill for many hours over 16 or 17 days and who may not have had to concentrate so hard on this issue, this debate has been a bit of a rest.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that this is not a matter to be dealt with in the Industrial Relations Bill. Contracting out was dealt with in the Trade Dispute Act, 1906, which is the whole foundation of trade union law.

Mr. Smith: It is the Government's view that this question ought not to be dealt with in this Bill. There are other ways of tackling issues of this sort, and perhaps Parliament will have the opportunity to do so in due course, but I agree that it does not do any harm to ventilate these matters in this way. I know that Liberals have consderable feelings on the subject. I hope that, having ventilated their feelings, they will stay the rest of the night to vote, preferably on my side, but, if they cannot do that, on the other, at least not going home to bed as they usually do.

Mr. Heffer: Unlike the Under-Secretary, I do not mind being rude to the Liberals. To use the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), I thought the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) impeccably reactionary from beginning to end. The speeches from the Liberals were better Tory speeches than we have heard from hon. Members opposite. There is no reason why I should not be rude to the Liberals because on this Bill their basic traditions have been jettisoned.
I do not regard this proposal as offering light relief. It has some importance, even though it is only dimly related to the Bill. We could have a valuable discussion on the whole subject of political financing on another occasion. I hope that the Under-Secretary did not mean to imply that we could expect a Bill introducing something like the Liberal proposal. I assure him that the trade union movement will take clear note of that possible implication. I hope that he did not mean it, but we shall watch it carefully.

Mr. David Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to that expression


of hope that we may debate the subject on a future occasion that the Opposition will give a Supply Day for the purpose?

Mr. Heffer: I am neither the Leader of the Opposition nor in the Shadow Cabinet, and I cannot say what the likely position about a Supply Day will be.

Mr. Harold Walker: Not next week.

Mr. Heffer: That may be well understood.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was absolutely correct when he admitted that there is no comparison between the trade union contributions, the political levy, and the contributions made by the shareholders of companies to Tory Party funds. I want to make clear why there is a political levy. Let us look at the historical reasons for the political levy. An hon. Member opposite said that the Labour Party was the political arm of the trade union movement. That is partly true and partly untrue. But the Labour Party was created as a result of actions of the trade union movement in association with a number of political Socialist groups, and the reason for that arose directly from industrial struggles. To that extent, this matter has a definite relevance to the Bill.
What led to the development of the Labour Party was the Taff Vale decision. Until then, the trade unions had put their trust in the Liberal Party, and they discovered that their trust was not entirely safe. They had to recognise that it was necessary for the trade unions to have people in the House who would speak and act on their behalf.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Liberal Party was responsible for the Taff Vale judgment and that he will recognise that one of the first things the Liberal Government did was to reverse it.

Mr. Heffer: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber during our debates he would have heard me make the point that the people who were members of the Liberal Party at the beginning of this century would be spinning round in their graves at the attitude taken by the Liberal Party today in view of what the Liberal Party did for the trade union movement. I have made that point so

many times that I am reluctant at this late hour to make it again, but perhaps it must be made from time to time.
I return to the argument that the trade union movement felt it necessary to have representatives in the House. The Labour Party is not a purely trade union party. It is a trade union party up to a point. But it is basically a socialist party because there was a merging of a number of organisations to create and form the Labour Party.
The political levy arises out of that situation. The political levy is not paid by every trade union member. One of my hon. Friends made it clear that when a person joins a trade union the branch secretary or whoever is responsible for his enrolment informs him that if he does not want to pay the political levy he can contract out. But because of the policies adopted by hon. Members opposite from 1927 until they were repealed in 1946, when I joined the trade union movement I had to contract in to the Labour Party. We reversed the situation only because it was administratively right to do so and because it put the Labour Party back in the position it was in when it was created by the trade union movement. Why not? We have nothing to be ashamed of. We are proud of the history of the Labour Party and of the trade union movement in creating it. So let us get that clear.
There are one or two other points that I need to make—

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Bidwell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the historical seminar, may I ask him to bear in mind that it was the Osborne judgment which brought about the separation of union funds, because one trade unionist took that action finally to the House of Lords? It was no wish of the trade union movement, as my hon. Friend has correctly said, that there should be such a separation of funds. It certainly does not apply to company activities. There is no comparison.

Mr. Heffer: I did not want to go too far into the historical seminar. I felt that the House could bear only so much about that.
For our part, concerning the question of political funds, there are certain obvious attractions in some of the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman and, no doubt, at some future time political


parties will look at the question of subsidies or subventions. Something may well come out of this in the dim and distant future.
Whatever comes out of that idea, however, I hope that no one will suggest that we should adopt the American method because, if we did the chances of ordinary working people ever entering the House of Commons would be nil. If we believe in democracy we should dismiss any such idea. I hope that no hon. Member would like to go along with that proposal.
We say that the Amendment is totally irrelevant to the Bill. We have some Amendments down which are relevant to it, and I trust that we can get on to them at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I make no apology for speaking. I deny totally the suggestion which has just been made by the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour Party that the matter is totally irrelevant. Equally, I deny what the Minister said about its being light relief. It is not a question of light relief, nor is it irrelevant to industrial relations in any way.
For us on the Liberal Bench the position of the Conservative Party is extraordinary. Anyone who went to any Conservative meeting over the last five, 10 or 15 years and asked the Conservative spokesman what he thought about contracting in and contracting out would have got a definite and decisive answer. It would be in favour of our Amendment.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I realise that there are strong feelings on these issues both on the Opposition side and on this side of the House, but they are not relevant to our discussion about reforming industrial relations.

Mr. Johnston: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has alluded to the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, and the fact that it appeared to be of some relevance then. Its relevance has not diminished greatly with the passage of the years.
I want to make only three brief points. What hon. Members of both parties must, and should, recognise tonight is that the Amendment is about the fact that we in this party believe that political contribu-

tions should be made without any question of pressure. It is quite simply that.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is shaking his head slightly—

Mr. Reg Prentice: Vigorously.

Mr. Johnston: It was not very vigorous. The hon. Member said earlier that his trade union did not make a personal contribution to him—it was nothing as sordid or personal—but made a contribution instead to his constituency association. It seems to be that there is a deep and profound moral difference. Fiddlesticks, I would say to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashton: I made that point because the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), when challenged about the fact that he had not disclosed that he received £400 from the Schoolmasters Association, admitted it but did not say whether he received it personally.

Mr. Johnston: The two things are unrelated. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was talking about a contribution that he received as an individual Member of the House, which had nothing to do with his constituency. Nevertheless, he made it public. The contribution in the case of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is directly directed to getting him elected.
For the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is usually a very honest and forthright character, to say apparently without blushing that the Labour Party in 1946 reversed the position of contracting out and made it contracting in because it was administratively right to do so—

Mr. Buchan: And?

Mr. Johnston: Because it was administratively right to do so, was the argument the hon. Member for Walton adduced and the argument that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw adduced, and there was no "and".

Mr. Buchan: There was.

Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman wants an "and" he must stand and say so.

Mr. Heffer: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets a hearing aid from the National Health Service. After saying that


it was administratively correct, I went on to say that it put the position back to the position that existed before 1927 and this was the traditional position of the Labour Party and it was right to do that.

Mr. Johnston: Simply because people have an urge to re-create a conservative position does not seem to me particularly acceptable. However, we are digressing. The fundamental point here is that we know that the political contribution made to a trade union is frequently made for reasons of apathy or disinterest and sometimes—we all know that this is true—because of communal pressure within the union which makes an individual member very reluctant to contract out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. It is much less nonsense than for the hon. Member for Walton to say that the Labour Party reversed the position in the 1940s, for administrative convenience. That is a ridiculous argument.
It was surprising to hear the Under-Secretary defending the status quo in this instance, though not perhaps generally. The hon. Gentleman said that it is important that all political parties receive finance in some way. We know that this is a very important element in the financing of the Labour Party. I do not deny that. Nevertheless, I say that it is a wrong way of getting money.
Turning to the question of companies and the Conservative Party—

Mr. Heffer: It should be made clear that this is not a matter of raising money. By paying the political levy, members of trade unions join the Labour Party as affiliated members. This is a matter of party membership, and not merely a means of raising money.

Mr. Johnston: With respect, that may be clear to the hon. Gentleman, but still I deny it. I cannot accept that the Labour Party feels that it is as simple as that. Occasionally, I act as an administrator and a bureaucrat, and I cannot see any difference between allowing a person to contract in and allowing him to contract out when he signs a form. It is rubbish to suggest that there is some great fundamental difference.
The Labour Party depends for much of its money even upon the indolence of people or the communal pressure that is put upon them—

Mr. Bidwell: To get any feeling of the historical background of the situation, one has to go back to the Lib-Lab period, when Members of Parliament were not paid and when the trade unions made it possible for working men to come to this House. At that time, the Liberal Party supported the present situation of political funds. It is because the Liberals are no longer true to their liberal traditions that they are such a shambles in this House and amount to so little.

Mr. Johnston: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the position at the beginning of the century and that today are very different. The financial disparity was very different. There was a real necessity for monetary support to be given to Lib-Lab trade union Members of this House. I do not accept that that is valid today.
The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that a shareholder who objected to a political contribution being made could easily withdraw his shares is not a very valid one. There is a distinction between the commercial activity of a company and the political activity of a company. It is an important distinction. If an individual looks at a company commercially and sees that it is doing well and bringing him a relatively good income, obviously its commercial undertaking is sound and he is willing to leave his money with it. But he is placed in an invidious and unreasonable position if the directors of the company decide upon a political act which he finds unacceptable and which is not related to the commercial progress of the company.
In this Amendment, which is very fair to both sides, all that we seek to do is to allow a shareholder in such a position to have a say in what is being done.

Mr. Thomas Swain: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he may safely conclude his speech now since 100 per cent. of his party membership is present?

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's perspicacity is boundless.
This is a two-part Amendment designed very simply to try to ensure that contributions to political parties are made freely and without any pressure. That, surely, in this House is a desirable objective.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 272.

Division No. 275.]
AYES
[8.55 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Eden, Sir John


Astor, John
Burden, F. A.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Awdry, Daniel
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chapman, Sydney
Emery, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Eyre, Reginald


Batsford, Brian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Farr, John


Bali, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cosport)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael


Benyon, W.
CIegg, Watter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Biggs-Davison, John
Coombs, Derek
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blaker, Peter
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Fortescue, Tim


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Foster, Sir John


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Fowler, Norman


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Fox, Marcus


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Fraeer,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bowden, Andrew
Crowder, F. P.
Fry, Peter


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Gardner, Edward


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj.-Gen.
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.




Goodhart, Philip
McCrindle, R. A.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gorst, John
McLaren, Martin
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cower, Raymond
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Scott, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Green, Alan
Madel, David
Sharpies, Richard


Grieve, Percy
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil
Simeons, Charles


Cummer, Selwyn
Mather, Carol
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maude, Angus
Skeet, T. H. H.


Halt-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spences, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sproat, Iain


Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Stainton, Keith


Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Havers, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Steel, David


Hay, John
Moate, Roger
Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)


Hayhoe, Barney
Molyneaux, James
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Money, Emle
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hicks, Robert
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stokes, John


Higgins, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Sutcliffe, John


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
More, Jasper
Tapsell, Peter


Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Holland, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tilney, John


Hunt, John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Iremonger, T. L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jessel, Toby
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Waddington, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pink, R, Bonner
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pounder, Ration
Wall, Patrick


Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Warren, Kenneth


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wells, John (Maidstone)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wiggin, Jerry


Kirk, Peter
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Wilkinson, John


Kitson, Timothy
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Lambton, Antony
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Woodnutt, Mark


Lane, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Worsley, Marcus


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hn. George


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey



Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Loveridge, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rossl, Hugh (Homsey)





NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis,
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Conlan, Bernard


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Crewshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Cronin, John


Barnes, Michael
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Barnett, Joel
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Beaney, Alan
Cant, R. B.
Dalyell, Tam


Bern, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Darling, Rt. Hn. George


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davidson, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bishop, E. S.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Booth, Albert
Cohen, Stanley
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)







Deakins, Eric
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Kinnock, Neil
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lawson, George
Rankin, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Ellis, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Evans, Fred
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Loughlin, Charles
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roper, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Foot, Michael
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ford, Ben
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael
Silverman, Julius


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E.
Mackie, John
Small, William


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackintosh, John p.
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Spriggs, Leslie


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stallard, A. W.


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marquand, David
Strang, Gavin


Hamilton, James (BothweII)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Swain, Thomas


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hattersley, Roy
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Tomney, Frank


Heffer, Eric S.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Torney, Tom


Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Tuck, Raphael


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Urwin, T. W.


Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moyle, Roland
Wallace, George


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Watkins, David


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Murray, Ronald King
Weitzman, David


Hunter, Adam
Ogden, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Armur (Edge Hill)
O'Halloran, Michael
Well, William (Walsall, N.)


Janner, Greville
O'Malley, Brian
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras. S.)
Oram, Bert
Whitehead, Philip


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


John, Brynmor
Orme, Stanley
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, James (K'stonon-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)



Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pendry, Tom
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Judd, Frank
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Kaufman, Gerald

[For Division List 276 see col. 453.]

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that it will be noted that in the last Division all good Tories came to the help of the Labour Party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

Clause 3

APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF CODE OF PRACTICE AND REVISIONS OF CODE

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 2, line 36, after 'Parliament', insert
proposals for a draft code of practice in order to debate and amend the principles to be embodied in'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 127. in page 3, line 6, after 'Commission', insert 'and Parliament'.

Mr. Rose: It is a very sad and perhaps apt commentary on the working of the guillotine that at 12 minutes past eleven o'clock on the final day of the Report stage we on this side are given the opportunity for the very first time to debate one of our own Amendments to the original Bill; and not to the second Bill presented to us by the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, who might well be termed the "Industrial Relations (No. 2) Bill". We have debated 15 new Clauses, but so far we have not been allowed to debate one of our Amendments. Now, less than three-quarters of an hour before the Report stage finishes and the Bill goes to another place, we are allowed to revert to an important matter which was debated to some extent in Committee, when hon. Members on both sides voiced concern that a very important code of practice was not to be debated as part of the Bill, but would be subject to an affirmative Resolution.
That procedure means that the House will have precisely one and a half hours in which to debate a code which is not

only to govern fair practice in industry but is to be allowed as evidence in a court of law, and the breach of which will inevitably mean that the person in breach will be held to be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. Not only that, but the Order will not be capable of amendment. Therefore, whether we call this code the "highway code", as did the Under-Secretary of State, or whether we call it the "Marquess of Queensberry rules for trade union bashing", or any other name, we shall, if the Clause goes through unamended, be precluded from debating the principles—

Mr. Adam Butler: If I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that a breach of the code would be an unfair industrial practice, but he will agree that the code has no binding legality.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at Clause 4, which states
… any such code of practice shall be admissible in evidence, and …
any provision of such a code of practice which appears to the Court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings shall be taken into account by the Court or tribunal in determining that question.
A breach of the Highway Code invariably results in a conviction, as a visit to any court on any day will demonstrate. Our view is that a breach of this code will almost inevitably result in an adverse decision against the person in breach.

Mr. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a breach of this code would be an unfair industrial practice?

Mr. Rose: It would result in a finding of unfair industrial practice in the way that a breach of the Highway Code inevitably results in a finding of, say, careless driving or driving without due care. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee he will agree that hon. Members on both sides have put this interpretation on the Bill.
When we refer to a consultative document we recall the consultation we had over the Bill. It is not good enough that everybody in this House has been consulted. We gather that professional organisations have exerted much influence lately. They, along with the C.B.I. and the C.I.R., have been consulted about this code of practice point, but not this


House. The Amendment would enable us to spend a whole day, if necessary, considering the code prior to it being put forward as an Order. We could examine it in detail and, if necessary, suggest amendments.
It is a denigration of this House for this code of practice to be debated outside this Chamber with all sorts of organisations, leaving us with a proposed one and a half hours after ten o'clock to debate the issue, and then without the possibility of amending it. I gather that under Clause 3(1) another Order would be necessary if the original Order needed amending.
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is concerned over this sort of problem, where parent legislation contains far-reaching powers offering the Government a blank cheque and the House only one and a half hours to consider what is proposed. Unfortunately, before that short debate takes place we will not have the slightest notion of what is contained in the draft code of practice. It illustrates a very serious constitutional danger with regard to subordinate legislation, a danger which ought to commend itself not only to hon. Members on this side of the House who are opposed to the Bill, but also to those who are concerned about the supremacy of Parliament and the dangers of subordinate legislation and of giving a blank cheque to any Government of the day in this way.
Taken with the first Amendment, which would provide for a debate prior to the laying of the Order before the House, there is a second Amendment, No. 127. It follows logically from the first Amendment and the principle is precisely the same: that the drafting of the code would follow consultation with the C.I.R.—that is right and proper, because my right hon. Friend created the C.I.R., which was described by Mr. George Woodcock as the greatest advance in industrial relations in his lifetime. The C.I.R. is already being sabotaged by the Government by the imposition of the N.I.R.C. upon it, which has already led to two resignations. It is right and proper that the C.I.R. should be consulted, but it ought to be also right and proper that the House should be consulted before the draft is laid before it.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, at this late hour, with 40 minutes to go, to say that this is a debate as much about the sovereignty of Parliament as about the Bill. If he is really concerned about the reputation and rights of the House, he will be prepared to discuss the contents of a code of such wide reaching importance over the whole of industry and a code about which there is a considerable controversy, as he knows, not only in the House but also outside it. This is not a matter to be pushed into an odd one and a half hours late at night. The House ought to have an opportunity of debating the subject and of making constructive suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman.
I commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman. By accepting it, he would not be accepting any change in the code of practice in advance. All that he would be accepting is the principle that the House should be consulted and have the right to debate it and to take precedence over outside bodies which apparently have far more influence upon the Government than the democratically elected Members of the House.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will not just look into these Amendments and tell us that he did not find our arguments very weighty, but that he will also heed the words of some of his hon. Friends who were disturbed about the matter, and say that he will give way on this matter, that there will be room and time for a debate, and that he will listen to the views of the House before adopting his draft code of practice. He can do that by accepting the Amendments.

Mr. Adam Butler: I agree entirely with the importance of the code of practice. I look forward with anticipation to its early appearance in the House.
It recognises the voluntary nature, which is at the basis of the Bill. Perhaps for that reason one could question the extent of the debate which is necessary. The points which it will bring out are those which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the past few years, not only at Conservative Party conferences but on other occasions. It will deal with recommendations and advice to both sides of industry as to how they should conduct their affairs, especially on the vital


matter of communications—an O.K. word, but one which means letting the participants in industry know what is going on.
I hope that there will be recommendations on works councils, for instance, certainly with firms above a certain size, works councils which are not involved just with the minutiae of business but which are searching for help and advice from all sides of industry. I would look for an extension not of worker representation on executive boards, but of worker representation, shareholder representation and management representation on advisory boards in industry, which is the German practice. This has a political consequence but, more important, all sides of industry have an important contribution to make towards the management of companies. These are some of the things I look for in the code of practice.
I hope that the debate will be very wide. I particularly hope that the T.U.C. will overcome its inhibitions about consultation with the Government on this point, and that my right hon. Friend, having published the terms of the code of practice, will give not weeks but months to debate in the country with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and other bodies.
I must accent the voluntary nature of the code. Whatever the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) may have said, it has been recognised during Second Reading and in Committee that there will be nothing legally binding in these proposals—

Mr. Rose: I repeat to the hon. Member that there is, in the same sense, nothing legally binding in the highway code. One can be in breach of the highway code without being in breach of a Statute, but as soon as one is found in a court to be in breach of the highway code conviction automatically follows, and in this sense it is legally binding.

Mr. Butler: I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) shaking his head. I think "automatically" is wrong. The Bill says that the code of practice will be taken into account. In the same way as we accept the highway code as a reasonable code of practice on the road, so I hope we would accept this code of practice as

reasonable in the conduct of industry. It is, therefore, fair that the courts should take it into account when considering the industrial practice of employers or unions.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point of whether the House should be free to debate the provisions or whether the affirmative Resolution procedure should apply. I should be happy if my right hon. Friend would allow us a debate, but I take the hon. Gentleman up on his point about a debate in the country. We in this House have a great deal to contribute to the debate, but if the T.U.C. and all other industrial bodies were to participate in the debate there would be great merit in that. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a debate some months after he has published the code—perhaps in the autumn—so that the House may have the opportunity for amendment, rather than to adopt the affirmative Resolution procedure.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Bidwell: Although the debate is not specifically about a non-appearing code of industrial practice, the debates about industrial relations have reached a height greater than for many years as a result of the introduction of the Bill itself, and it may well be that interest will be further heightened when the Bill becomes law, as it seems likely that it will. That is all to the good. None of us on either side would wish to steer away from that necessity, I am sure.
In an earlier debate about the code of practice, I put it to the Secretary of State that it would be axiomatic. The right hon. Gentleman rejected the word "axiomatic", and, on reflection, I think that he was right in the sense that the code of practice is an important part of what he is trying—though going about it in a mistaken way—to achieve. In so far as the code of practice is admissible in evidence, it assumes a weight and significance which may be substantial in certain instances.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) in that sense, and I am glad that he is, as it were, putting his weight behind our Amendment in wishing there to be adequate parliamentary time for there to be a searching and through going debate on the code of practice. Inevitably, there will be debate outside the House, but I


do not think that one can properly put a time to its coming before the House, as the hon. Gentleman did when he suggested that it could be a year or so before we debated the code here.
If the code of practice is to assume the weight implied by admissibility in evidence in the National Industrial Relations Court, the sooner it comes before the House for the fullest possible debate, with hon. Members on both sides contributing out of their experience in industry, the better. It could, so to speak, strangle itself if it was concerned with trivialities. On the other hand, if it is to assume the form envisaged by the Secretary of State, it will be a document of considerable significance and of new dimensions in our society.
The code of practice, as I understand it, will be a document of constitutional importance. It would be mistaken and wrong to try to slide it away from the House in any way. I hope, therefore, that there will be a vote on both sides in support of our Amendment. That is the best way of proceeding if hon. Members opposite are sincere in wishing to take the best course to improve industrial relations. We have our doubts about that, but these things are tested in actions, not words.
We on this side give way to no one in wishing to see a considerable improvement in industrial relations and the development of the kind of society we hope soon to see, with co-operation in industry reaching heights hitherto unknown. We must have that if we are to survive as an industrial trading nation. My right hon. Friends were struggling to achieve it when they were in Government. They were making certain mistakes, but that was their overall objective, and they are much likelier to achieve it than any Tory Government.
But these matters are to be tested, and one way to do it rationally is in the new code, which is to assume such importance. I should like to know from the Secretary of State in particular, since he did not accept my word "axiomatic" earlier, what weight he puts upon it. If it is considerable, what facility is he prepared to give us to debate the code thoroughly?

Mr. Hooson: It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will give way on this point. The provision of the Indus-

trial Court code of practice will be a very important element in the Bill. No one who followed the Committee stage, with all its ramifications, can fail to have observed that many speeches were repetitions of Second Reading speeches. It may be much more important to debate the code than it has been to take part in many of the Committee debates.
One thing we have learned in the course of our debates has been that there is a great deal of industrial expertise in the House. Therefore, if the code, for good or ill, is to be a very important element in the Bill, and assume the importance that, say, constitutional conventions have assumed in the House over the years, these matters should be subjected to debate in the House. The provisions of the Bill seem to me to allow only for an hour and a half's debate on an affirmative Order procedure, which is not good enough for such a code. Therefore, I took the view, as is shown by Amendments, which were not called, that the Bill should not become law until the code had been published and approved by the House, and that if that was not possible at least it should be published as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law.
The Secretary of State has not shown himself to be particularly tractable on the Bill, but he could concede something here. If we are to have a code, which presumably will be prepared in his Department after due consultation with the Commission and so on, it would he very odd if the House, with a great deal of industrial expertise, has to consider it in a matter of an hour and a half.
I hope that the signs I discern in the Secretary of State mean that he will meet the very reasonable point made.

Mr. Keith Stainton: I wonder what thought my right hon. Friend has given to the Green Paper procedure. Perhaps I have missed this part of the debate. A Green Paper might well be published, and that would not be inconsistent with the terminology of the Bill.

Mr. Orme: We have had a debate on the question of the unseen, unsung, unwritten code of practice. We have done some peculiar things in our consideration of the Bill, but nothing as peculiar as discussing and voting on legislation that


we have never seen. It is an extraordinary procedure.
I happened to see a short part of an important television programme dealing with the Bill this evening. I saw the Solicitor-General, amongst other speakers. The interesting point was that a number of those taking part referred to the industrial code of conduct and its importance. They said that the Bill would be governed by it, and that in effect it might be more important than the Bill itself. But I assume that all those speakers were no more privy to the code than we are. The British electorate were being told tonight about something that nobody has seen. What is more, when we do see this important code which the Solicitor-General says is going to be more important than the Bill, we shall be able to debate it for only 1½ hours on an affirmative Order. It is an absolute disgrace and reveals the full shallowness of the Government's case.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why is the hon. Gentleman being so obtuse and pretending not to understand the obvious? He is a practical Member of this House and has contact with what goes on. He knows that the code of practice will codify the commonsense actions which have always been followed by sensible trade unions. He is a member of a sensible trade union. He knows that the code will codify its commonsense actions. He should not put on this sham indignation about a matter which he, as a sensible man, understands very well. He is not obtuse. He is making a sham of his case.

Mr. Orme: I am on a valid point. We are entitled to see what it is we are debating. We are passing legislation affecting millions of people and we are not seeing it. The Solicitor-General has said that it will define the rôle of shop stewards and of management. He pulled certain things out the air but gave no facts. We were told that consultations had taken place with the trade union movement but we know there have been none. In consequence, we are being asked to pass something which we have not seen The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) says I am a sensible person.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: So you are, usually.

Mr. Orme: If that is so, then, as a normal, average, sensible person, I like to be able to see and read the legislation I am supposed to be considering. Trade unionists and managements outside who will have to operate the code of practice should also be able to see it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Orme: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. I am making only a brief contribution.
I have tonight heard the code of practice referred to by people on television who like us have not seen it. They prayed it in aid because, they said, it would improve industrial relations. This is the height of nonsense. If ever there was an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere about this Bill, this must be the issue. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us the facts.

Mr. R. Carr: I must tell the House that, as I am sure many hon. Members know, unless we alter our procedures the method proposed in the Amendment is not acceptable because, under those procedures, we could not proceed in the way it suggests. Subordinate legislation never has been, I understand, amendable because otherwise it would become similar to ordinary legislation.

Mr. Rose: I do not think that right hon. Gentleman can have read the Amendment correctly. It would provide for a debate on a consultative document prior to his laying the Order before the House.

Mr. Carr: It also refers to the possibility of Amendment.

Mr. Rose: Prior to laying the Order.

Mr. Carr: Surely the hon. Gentleman is putting a new slant on this.

Mrs. Castle: This is a serious proposition we are putting to the right hon. Gentleman. We had the Consultative Document before this Bill, and then we had the Bill. We debated the document and now we have a chance to amend the Bill because it is major and not subordinate legislation. Recognising the impossibility of amending subordinate legislation in the ordinary way, we propose that the right hon. Gentleman should bring forward a consultative document in advance of his draft Order or draft


code. He should then enable the House to amend the Consultative Document. On that he would proceed to base his draft code.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Carr: I beg the right hon. Lady's pardon. I had not understood that to be the intention of the Amendments. However, I have not misunderstood the technical advice which I have been given about the possibility of accepting the Amendments. If we were to write them into the Bill they would not have the meaning which the right hon. Lady has put upon them, but would be taken to involve an extra process of amendment, as with this stage of the Bill.
I recognise that the code is a very important part of our proposals. It is complementary to but separate from the Bill itself. The provisions are not directly enforceable; nor in our view should they be, because conditions vary enormously from industry to industry and even from company to company within the same industry. If we were to make the provisions of the code directly enforceable, we should be putting industrial relations into a straitjacket, and it would be quite wrong to do that. They are of a different character from the basic provisions of the Bill and are properly dealt with by subordinate legislation.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who drew an analogy with the Highway Code, whose provisions, he said, become almost automatically enforceable. I do not believe the two sets of conditions are similar, because driving on the road is, although no doubt diverse, less diverse than the conditions throughout the whole of employment in industry, trade and commerce. It is largely criminal law, while here we are dealing with the civil law. Clause 103(3) makes it clear that in deciding any matter the court must take into account the extent to which the other party may have contributed to the problem; for instance, with a union, the court must take into account the extent to which the employer may or may not have contributed to whatever has gone wrong. We do not accept that the provisions of the code will in any way become automatically enforceable.
There is another difference, namely, that we expect and intend that the code should be capable to being added to and

revised in a fairly flexible manner. This is a new idea; we are experimenting—we make no apology for that—and we therefore think that as we gain experience and conditions change, we ought fairly flexibly, more flexibly than by main legislation, to be able to add to, or subtract from, or revise, the provisions of the code.
For all those reasons, we believe that it should be in the form of subordinate legislation. It is not altogether new—which does not mean that it is not altogether right—for main legislation to be debated and passed in advance of subordinate legislation being available for examination.
I hope to publish the consultative draft as soon as possible. Using the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), we certainly hope to provide months not weeks for the code to be thought about, and consulted about. I stress that the document will be open for genuine consultation and views by hon. Members and other people and bodies outside the House for a period of months, not weeks.
The right. hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggests that perhaps we should have a debate on the consultative document so that the views of Parliament can be expressed on the Floor of the House and not only in more informal discussion. She will understand, and I hope that she will not take it amiss, that I cannot commit by right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I did not understand the meaning of the Amendment. I will convey the right hon. Lady's view to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot commit him in advance on the question of setting aside a particular day for a debate.
Whether or not we have a debate—and I would not wish to shirk a debate on the consultative draft—my idea would be, before the end of the year, having had some months for consultation, to be able to bring the draft before Parliament for approval so that I should in effect be meeting what I know the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pays much attention to, as do I and the House, namely, that the code and the Bill should become operative at about the same time. I felt it right in the Bill to allow for a latitude of time, but I shall regard myself as having failed


if I lose any substantial amount of time before getting the code into operation.
Hon. Members have spoken about having a 1½ hour debate when the code comes before the House for final approval. That is often all the debate that affirmative Resolutions have. But it will be in the knowledge of the House that on important matters affirmative resolutions often have longer. While I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in advance, I shall convey to him with strength, and with an expression of my willingness that this should happen, that at the final stage we should have a day rather than 1½ hours. That is what I hope will happen.

Mrs. Castle: We are glad to learn from the Secretary of State that he is preparing to put the consultative draft before the public and before Parliament. That is something to be thankful for. But we remain unconvinced that he cannot go the step further which we request in our Amendment, namely, to enable Amendments to his consultative draft to be moved and voted on in the House.
The Secretary of State has argued that the code of practice is of a different character from the Bill. But in the last few months, while we have been examining the Bill, the code of practice has loomed even larger in importance than the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters repeatedly say that the Bill is only a reserve framework of legal powers, that what matters is to change attitudes and that the right way to change attitudes is to set down a code of practice which will inspire all people on both sides of industry for the years to come.
It is remarkable how the code has been brought in as a rescue operation to save the Government from some of the bad impressions left by the Bill. As we have brought into the light of day the legal complexities, and in some cases the downright legal frivolities as well as tyrannies of the Bill, the Government have become more and more uneasy and have kept saying, "That is not the way in which it will be done. The code of practice will do the trick, and we will not ever use any of these laws." The laws will exist, apparently, only to make everybody pay attention to the code of practice. It has, therefore, become a focal point.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, the fascinating thing is that the Hamlet in this great Shakespeare play has never yet appeared upon the stage, and the curtain is practicaly coming down. We are still waiting for this hero to materialise. He is lurking somewhere in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination, and he will do wonderful things when he appears on the stage.
It is astonishing that in the Bill we should be solemnly voting, as we did when we voted on Clause 4 some weeks ago, to make the centre-piece of the right hon. Gentleman's industrial relations policy a document that we have not yet seen and, what is more, solemnly voting that such a document shall be admissible in evidence before the National Industrial Relations Court. This is an entirely different situation from what the right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest was the normal method of having the major legislation first and then the subordinate. The code is not subordinate.
We are told that it is the major part of the reform movement which the right hon Gentleman has been launching on the world, and it will obviously be a far-reaching and complex document. It will embody all those elusive principles that we had in Clause 1. Perhaps even under subsection (1)(a), the very first subsection of the Bill, the code of practice will spell out to us at last the mysteries of the Government's incomes policy, because it will certainly deal with what ought to be responsible collective bargaining from the Government's viewpoint. Only through the code of practice will we ever get any indication of management's responsibilities, which the Government forgot to mention until we pointed out their omission whereupon they rushed the Amendment to subsection (2)(a).
The code of practice has to remedy a lot of things in the Bill. It has to rescue the Government'se reputation in industrial relations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should let us have the code of practice in consultative document form that the House can amend. In asking for this in the Amendment, we are fulfilling a desire on both sides of the House and we therefore ask that our Amendment should be accepted. If it is not, we must divide the House.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 294.

[For Division List 277 see col. 455.]

It being after Twelve o'clock, Mr. Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], successively to put the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Clause 5

RIGHTS OF WORKERS IN RESPECT OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES.

Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 3, line 37, after 'section', insert
and to section (Special provisons for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act.'—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 292, Noes 139.

[For Division List 278 see col. 459.]

Further Amendments made:

No. 8, in page 4, line 46, at end insert—
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)of this section an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, shall not be regarded as preventing or deterring a worker from exercising the rights conferred on the worker by subsection (1)(b) of this section by reason only that (without any suggestion of reward for compliance or penalty of noncompliance) he seeks to encourage the worker to join a trade union which the employer recognises as having negotiating rights in respect of him.

No. 9, in page 5, line 12, after '(2)', insert '(4A)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Clause 6

PRESSURE ON EMPLOYER TO INFRINGE RIGHTS UNDER S. 5

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 16, leave out Clause 6.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Clause 7

PRE-ENTRY CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS TO BE VOID

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (2).

No. 13, in line 25, leave out Subsections (1) and (2)' and insert Subsection (1)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 6, line 27, at end insert
'or in so far as it constitutes an approved closed shop agreement within the meaning of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 133.

[For Division List 279 see col. 463.]

Clause 9

CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITY INSTEAD OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRADE UNION

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 8, line 6, leave out and the next following section ' and insert Part of this Act'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 129.

[For Division List 280 see col. 465.]

Clause 12

BALLOT AS TO AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT

Amendment proposed: No. 228, in page 10, line 2, leave out '42' and insert
'(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264. Noes 129.

[For Division List 281 see col. 469.]

Clause 15

BALLOT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 14

Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
(4) If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have voted in favour of continuance of the agency shop agreement, the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application under section 14 of this Act if—

(a) it relates to the same agency shop agreement, and
(b) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was so reported.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Gerald Nabarro: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have distinctly seen two Opposition Members smoking in the "No" Lobby. Four other witnesses, hon. Friends of mine, have witnessed Members smoking in the "No" Lobby. Not only is this unhygienic, but it represents a grave fire risk and is contrary to the rules of the House. Would you take appropriate action forthwith, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest Parliamentarians, Sir Winston Churchill, was often seen smoking the most magnificent cigars in the Division Lobby, and everyone paid him great tribute for it.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever may be the health hazards, smoking in the Lobbies is a practice to be deprecated.
I remind hon. Members that whatever the tedium may be they are not permitted to read newspapers or books.

The House having divided: Ayes 252, Noes 128.

[For Division List 282 see col. 473.]

Clause 25

UNFAIRLY INDUCING DISMISSAL

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 19, line 14, leave out Clause 25.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the Ruling you have just given about hon. Members not reading books or newspapers, may I drew your attention to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who is reading a magazine.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) is reading something for amusement and not connected with the debate, he should not do so.

Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. Bernard Weatherill were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Clause 34

BREACH OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT

Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 24, line 40, after first 'agreement' insert:
'made after the commencement of this Act'. —[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 125.

[For Division List 283 see col. 477.]

Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 24, line 40, after 'of', insert 'such'.[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 121.

[For Division List 248 see col. 479.]

Clause 35

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT RELATING TO PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 25, line 39, at end insert—
(3) Before the Secretary of State makes an application under this section with respect to a unit of employment, he shall consult the


parties appearing to him, in relation to that unit, to be the parties to whom this section applies.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ashton: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Tellers are showing signs of distress. Would it be in order for them to sit down while working and to consume refreshments so that they can be at their best and not miscount?

Mr. Speaker: The answer is "no."

The House having divided: Ayes 234, Noes 119.

[For Division List 285 see col. 483.]

Mr. Speaker: Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 25—

Mr. Robert Mellish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that you are not taking individual Amendments as you were before?

Mr. Speaker: Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 were not moved.

Clause 39

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 38

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 28, line 45, leave out 'of' and insert:
employer or trade union included among'.— [Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 118.

[For Division List 286 see col. 485.]

Clause 42

PROPOSALS FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 30, line 28, leave out Clause 42.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 117.

[For Division List 287 see col. 489.]

Clause 43

REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 42

Amendment proposed: No. 27 in page 32, line 12, leave out ' 42 ' and insert
'(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'. —[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 116.

[For Division List 288 see col. 491.]

Clause 45

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 43

Amendment proposed: No. 45 in page 34, line 20, at end insert
(3) For the purpose of determining, with respect to any group of employees, what recommendation to make in a report under this section on the question specified in section (Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent) (1)(a) of this Act, the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees in that group have interests in common, having regard in particular to relation to each such description of employees, to—

(a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and
(b) their training, experience and qualifications.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 115.

[For Division List 289 see col. 495.]

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 34, line 25, leave out 'this' and insert
'the organisation or (in the case of a joint negotiating panel) every organisation represented on it, is an independent organisation of workers;


(b) that its recognition as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 114.

[For Division List 290 see col. 497.]

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 34, line 28, leave out (b) that it'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 115.

[For Division List 291 see col. 499.]

Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 34, line 29, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 115.

[For Division List 292 see col. 503.]

Clause 46

APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR BALLOT AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 35, line 23, leave out from ' particular ' to 'should' in line 24 and insert:
'organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 115.

[For Division List 293 see col. 717.]

Amendment proposed: No. 50, in page 35, line 30, leave out 'the trade union' and insert:
'subject to the next following subsection, the organisation of workers'.—[Mr. Hector Monro.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 115.

[For Division List 294 see col. 719.]

Amendment proposed: No. 51, in page 35, line 33, at end insert:

(2) No application under this section shall be made—

(a) by an organisation of workers, unless at the time of the application it is a trade union, or
(b) by a joint negotiating panel, unless at that time it is a joint negotiating panel of trade unions.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 114.

[For Division List 295 see col. 721.]

Clause 47

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT

Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 36, line 30, at end insert—
(3) Where the bargaining unit defined by an order under this section is the same as, or includes the whole or part of, the bargaining unit defined by a previous order under this section which is for the time being in force, the Industrial Court, on making the subsequent order, shall revoke the previous order.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 118.

[For Division List 296 see col. 725.]

Clause 50

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 49

Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 39, line 11, at end insert—

(3) On making an order under this section—

(a) with respect to a bargaining unit in respect of which an order under section 47 of this Act is for the time being in force, or


(b) with respect to a section of such a bargaining unit,
the Industrial Court shall revoke or (as the case may be) vary the order under section 47 of this Act as the Court may consider appropriate, having regard to the effect of the order made under this section.—[Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 117.

[For Division List 297 see col. 727.]

Amendment proposed: No. 229, in page 39, line 17, leave out 42 ' and insert
'(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'. —[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 118.

[For Division List 298 see col. 729.]

Clause 51

UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEDURES

Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 39, line 27, leave out subsection (1).—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 119.

[For Division List 299 see col. 733.]

Amendment proposed: No. 57, in page 41, line 4, at end insert:
'whether the report recommended some other organisation or panel as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or not, or
(b) to carry on, with any organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel which was not recommended as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, any collective bargaining in relation to employees of any description comprised in the bargaining unit to which that report related'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 120.

[For Division List 300 see col. 735.]

Amendment proposed: No. 230, in page 41, line 17, leave out '42' and insert:
'(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 122.

[For Division List 301 see col. 737.]

Clause 57

TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 46, line 12, after 'registered', insert 'as a trade union'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you find some way of getting the Government to stop this farce? We are being forced as a matter of principle to impress our views on the Government by dividing on an Amendment which owing to the printing none of us can read unless he has a research degree in Sanskrit or some other language?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I notice a slight misprint in my Notice Paper, but it is easily put right. I do not think the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point of order. May I take this opportunity very humbly to congratulate the House on its good humour?

The House having divided: Ayes 202, Noes 122.

[For Division List 302 see col. 741.]

Clause 58

EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS

Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 46, line 39, after 'registered', insert 'as


an employers' association'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 191, Noes 121.

[For Division List 303 see col. 743.]

Clause 61

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS

Amendment proposed: No. 62, in page 48, line 9, leave out 'reasonably well' and insert 'appropriately'. — [The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 121.

[For Division List 304 see col. 747.]

Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 49, leave out lines 21 to 26.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ray Mawby: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last Division there was a majority of 81 and yet the counting in the Lobby where there was the 81 majority took one minute less than the counting in the other Division Lobby. Is it possible to speed up the counting in the other Lobby, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is obvious that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Naturally the Chair is paying attention to all these points very carefully. In my opinion there is no undue delay in the "No" Lobby. The hon. Gentleman and the whole House can rely upon me to watch the position most carefully.

The House having divided: Ayes 206, Noes 121.

[For Division List 305 see col. 749.]

Clause 64

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 50, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 38.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 68

APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 52, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 13.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Eric Ogden: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, may I ask for your clarification on what I thought happened when you called Amendment No. 64? I understood, from what I heard, that the Solicitor-General had proposed it, and you then asked for the "Ayes" and the "Noes". Voices were raised for both, but, apparently because the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches appear on the Notice Paper, the normal practice of at least waiting for Tellers was not observed, and you moved immediately to Amendment No. 65—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches appeared on the Notice Paper, I took it that—

Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well. The last thing I wish to do is anything which the House as a whole thinks inappropriate. I declare the present Division null and void and I shall go back to the earlier Question on Amendment No. 64.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Victor Goodhew were appointed Tellers for the


Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 52, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 13.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Victor Goodhew were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act to Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Clause 74

ENTRY OF ORGANISATIONS IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER

Amendment proposed: No. 70, in page 55, line 38, leave out 'one month' and insert 'six months'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 120.

[For Division List 306 see col. 751.]

Clause 75

CANCELLATON OF ENTRIES IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 56, line 1, leave out Clause 75.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 118.

[For Division List 307 see col. 755.]

Clause 79

INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY REGISTRAR

Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 59, line 13, leave out 'serve' and insert:
'be appropriate for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say, to remedy

or mitigate the consequences, and'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 119.

[For Division List 308 see col. 757.]

Clause 81

ANNUAL RETURN, AUDIT, ANNUAL REPORT AND MEMBERS' SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 60, line 24 at end insert—
(5) Every trade union and every employers' association shall, at the request of any person, supply to him a copy of its rules on payment of a charge of such amount as may be specified in the rules.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last Division I voted in the "No" Lobby, but my name was not recorded. Would you please arrange for a suitable amendment to be made to the Division list?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will see that the right hon' Gentleman's name is recorded.

The House having divided: Ayes 196. Noes 116.

[For Division List 309 see col. 761.]

Clause 85

INDUCEMENT OF, OR THREAT TO INDUCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT

Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 62, line 30, at end insert—

(3) In this section 'contract'—

(a) does not include a collective agreement or any part of a collective agreement, and does not include any provisions having effect as a contract by virtue of an order under section 39 of this Act, but
(b) notwithstanding anything in the preceding paragraph, includes so much of any


contract of employment as is implied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement or by reference to any provisions having effect as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is quite out of order to read newspapers in the House.

The House having divided: Ayes 217, Noes 116.

[For Division List 310 see col. 763.]

Clause 87

INDUSTRIAL ACTION AGAINST EXTRANEOUS PARTIES

Amendment proposed: No. 75, in page 63, line 3, leave out 'by taking or threatening' and insert 'to take or threaten'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 117.

[For Division List 311 see col. 765.]

Amendment proposed: No. 76, in page 63, line 5, leave out from beginning to that ' in line 11 and insert—
'if—

(a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract (not being a contract of employment) with a party to that industrial dispute;
(b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and
(c)'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I shall not have occasion again to call the attention of the House to the fact that it

is quite out of order to read a newspaper in the Chamber. All hon. Members should know that.

The House having divided: Ayes 252, Noes 119.

[For Division List 312 see col. 769.]

Clause 90

COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE

Amendment proposed: No. 77, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'is' to end of line 12 and insert:
'the person against whom the action was taken'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Mawby: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening I raised a point of order concerning the amount of time that was being taken to count the votes in the "No" Lobby. In the last Division there was a majority of 133, yet it took two and a half minutes longer to count the "No" Lobby. Is there any way in which hon. Members can be protected from what appears to be a grave injustice?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This might be an opportune moment for me to make an observation on the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would hesitate before doing anything to interfere with the good temper and good humour which has been shown throughout the night. Having said that, I would ask hon. Members of the Opposition to guard against anything which might possibly be construed in any way as dilatoriness in the Lobby. I do not think that anything of the kind has occurred intentionally on their part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] But at this hour of the night things begin to drag a little sometimes. If we keep ourselves going along in the right way we shall have no trouble.

The House having divided: Ayes 257, Noes 135.

[For Division List 313 see col. 773.]

Clause 93

COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR IN CONSEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATION UNDER S. 79

Amendment proposed: No. 117 in page 68, line 1, leave out is requisite ' and insert—
'would be appropriate for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say, to remedy or mitigate the consequences, and'.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 138.

[For Division List 314 see col. 775.]

Clause 94

COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER S. 5 OR S. 20

Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 68, line 14, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
(c) where the complaint relates to dismissal, the complainant is the person who was dismissed, or, in any other case, the complainant is the person who was prevented or deterred from exercising his rights, or was penalised or otherwise discriminated against, or was refused engagement, as the case may be.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 140.

[For Division List 315 see col. 779.]

Clause 103

GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION

Amendment proposed: No. 84, in page 76, line 27, at end insert:
(5) In determining, on a complaint under section 94 of this Act, how far any loss sustained by the complainant was attributable to action taken by or on behalf of the employer, no account shall be taken of any pressure which was exercised on the employer as mentioned in section (Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers) (1)(a) of this Act, and that question shall be determined as if no such pressure had been exercised.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 140.

[For Divison List 316 see col. 783.]

Clause 108

ACTION INITIATED BY COMMISSION

Amendment proposed: No. 236, in page 79, line 10, leave out '42' and insert
'(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put: That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 140.

[For Division List 317 see col. 785.]

Clause 119

ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OR FURTHERANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Amendment proposed: No. 85, in page 84, line 39, after 'contract', insert
'to which that other person is a party or prevents another person from performing such a contract'—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 142.

[For Division List 318 see col. 789.]

Amendment proposed: No. 86, in page 84, line 41 after 'broken', insert:
'or will be prevented from being performed'. —[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 143.

[For Division List 319 see col. 791.]

Amendment proposed: No. 87, in page 84, line 43, at end insert
'or will prevent another person from performing such a contract'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 138.

[For Division List 320 see col. 795.]

Clause 126

ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 125

Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 88, line 8, at end insert
'or
(b) has no responsibility for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for threatening to do so, except in his capacity as an official of a trade union acting within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 139.

[For Division List 321 see col. 797.]

Clause 127

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WHERE ORDER MADE UNDER S. 126

Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 89, line 1, after 'Where', insert:
'at a time within the period for which the principal order is in force'—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 141.

[For Division List 322 see col. 801.]

Amendment proposed: No. 94, in page 89, line 5, after 'are', insert 'at that time'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 144.

[For Division List 323 see col. 803.]

Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 89, line 7, after ' not ' insert ' then '—.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 146.

[For Division List 324 see col. 807.]

Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 89, line 12, at end insert:

(4) In relation to any person to whom the principal order applies by virtue of an order made under subsection (3) of this section (in this subsection referred to as ' the supplementary order ') the supplementary order may impose any requirement which, in pursuance of section 126(5) of this Act, could have been imposed on him by the principal order if—

(a) the principal order had been made at the time when, and in the circumstances in which, the supplementary order is made, and
(b) he were one of the persons specified in the principal order.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 148.

[For Division List 325 see col. 811.]

Clause 134

EFFECT OF STRIKE NOTICE

Amendment proposed: No. 241, in page 93, line 41, at end insert—

(2) Subject to the next following subsection, where an employee takes part in a strike after due notice of his intention to do so has been given by him or on his behalf, his action in taking part in the strike shall not be regarded as a breach of his contract of employment for the puposes of—

(a) any proceedings in contract brought against the employee in respect of breach of that contract, or
(b) any proceedings in tort, whether brought against the employee or brought against any other person, or
(c) section 5 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 (breach of contract involving injury to persons or property), or
(d) section 85 of this Act.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any action by an employee which is contrary to a term of his contract of employment (including any term applied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement or by reference to any


provisions having effect as a contract by virtue of an order under section 39 of this Act) excluding or restricting his right to take part in a strike.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be taken to exclude or restrict any right which an employer would have apart from that subsection to dismiss (with or without notice) an employee who takes part in a strike.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Iremonger: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the impression of many hon. Members that when you called for the voices there was a call of "Aye" but no call of "No". In these circumstances, does the House understand that it is to divide?

Mr. Speaker: The House will have an opportunity of making a decision when I put the Question again in a few seconds.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 242, in page 93, line 45, at end insert—
(6) In the application of this section to Scotland, "proceedings in tort" shall be construed in accordance with section I24(a) of this Act.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 147.

[For Division List 326 see col. 813.]

Clause 140

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNREGISTERED ORGANISATIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 97, in page 97, line 35, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 45 and insert—
(3) Except as provided by the next following subsection, any judgment, order or award made in any such proceedings against an organisation to which this section applies (including any judgment or order directing the organisation to take, or to refrain or desist from taking, any action) shall be enforceable, by way of execution, diligence, punishment for contempt or otherwise, against any property belonging to, or held in trust for, the organisation, to the like extent and in the like manner as if the organisation were a body corporate.

(4) Recovery of any sum which in any such proceedings is awarded as compensation or damages, or in respect of costs or expenses, against an organisation to which this section applies shall not be enforceable against any property comprised in a fund belonging to or held in trust for the organisation.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 145.

[For Division List 327 see col. 817.]

Clause 141

ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS NOT TO BE REGISTERED UNDER OTHER ACTS

Amendment proposed: No. 98, in page 98, line 1, leave out 'and no employers' association shall be ' and insert:
'shall after the commencement of this Act, and no employers' association shall after being registered as an employers' association under this Act, become'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 146.

[For Division List 328 see col. 821.]

Amendment proposed: No. 99, in page 98, line 6, leave out ' under any of those Acts ' and insert:
'of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, where the registration was effected before the commencement of this Act—,

(a) shall become void at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which section (Application for entry in special register) of this Act comes into operation, unless before the end of that period the organisation makes an application for entry in the special register, and
(b) if such an application is so made, shall become void if on that application entry in the special register is refused.

(3) Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (I) of this section'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 147.

[For Division List 329 see col. 825.]

Clause 149

INTERPRETATION

Amendment proposed: No. 103, in page 104, line 6, leave out '6(2)' and insert:
'(Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers) (4)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 146.

[For Division List 330 see col. 827.]

Amendment proposed: No. 105, in page 105, line 18, at end insert:
`the special register' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 147.

[For Division List 331 see col. 831.]

Amendment proposed: No. 106, in page 106, line 4, at end insert:
(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of the definitions in subsection (1) of this section, in this Act—

(a) `worker' includes an individual regarded in his capacity as one who works or normally works or seeks to work as a person providing general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services or general ophthalmic services in accordance with arrangements made by an Executive Council under section 33, section 38, section 40 or section 41 of the National Health Service Act 1946 or under section 34, section 39, section 40 or section 42 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947; and
(b) `employer' includes any Executive Council in accordance with whose arrangements a person provides or has provided or normally provides or seeks to provide any services as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 152.

[For Division List 332 see col. 835.]

New Schedule

PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS

PART I

INITIAL APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT

1. Where one or more employers and one or more trade unions, or an employers' association and one or more trade unions, propose to enter into an agreement which, if made in accordance with proposals approved by the Industrial Court under this Schedule, would be an approved closed shop agreement, they may make a joint application to the Industrial Court under this Part of this Schedule.

2. Any such application shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed agreement, and shall be an application for approval by the Industrial Court of the proposals embodied in that draft.

3. The Industrial Court shall not entertain any such application in respect of a draft agreement if either—

(a) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which a previous application under this Part of this Schedule was made in respect of one or more descriptions of workers consisting of or including any of the descriptions of workers specified in the draft agreement, or
(b) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a ballot under Part II or Part III of this Schedule was reported to the Industrial Court, where the draft agreement relates (wholly or in part) to workers of any description comprised in that ballot.
and shall not entertain any such application if precluded from doing so by paragraph 15 of this Schedule.

4. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Schedule, on any application under this Part of this Schedule the Industrial Court shall refer the application to the Commission for examination by them.

5.—(1) On a reference under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the Commission shall consider whether it appears to them, in relation to workers of the description or descriptions specified in the draft agreement, that it is necessary for those workers to be comprised in an approved closed shop agreement for the purposes—

(a) of enabling them to be organised, or to continue to be organised, as mentioned in section 1(1)(c) of this Act;
(b) of maintaining reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment for those workers;
(c) of promoting or maintaining stable arrangements for collective bargaining relating to those workers; and
(d) of preventing collective agreements relating to those workers, which have been


or may thereafter be made by the applicants, from being frustrated.

(2) The Commission shall also consider whether it appears to them that in the circumstances the purposes specified in the preceding sub-paragraph could not reasonably be expected to he fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement.

6.—(1) On completing their consideration of the matters specified in paragraph 5 of this Schedule, the Commission shall prepare a report setting out their conclusions.

(2) The Commission shall transmit the report to the Industrial Court and shall furnish copies of it to the applicants and to the Secretary of State, and shall arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Commission may consider appropriate.

7.—(1) If, on considering the matters specified in sub-paragraph (1) and (2) of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, the Commission are not satisfied both—

(a) that for all the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (I) of that paragraph (and not only for one or some of those purposes) it is necessary for the workers in question to be comprised in an approved closed shop agreement, and
(b) that in the circumstances those purposes could not reasonably be expected to be fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement,
the report of the Commission shall indicate that fact; and in that case the Industrial Court shall not proceed further with the application to which that report relates.

(2) In any other case, the Industrial Court, on receiving the report of the Commission, shall make an order allowing such period, not being less than one month or more than three months, as the Court may consider appropriate for enabling an application to be made for a ballot under Part II of this Schedule.

8. If, in a case where the Industrial Court makes an order under paragraph 7(2) of this Schedule, no application for a ballot is made under Part II of this Schedule before the end of the period allowed by the order, the Industrial Court shall make an order approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement.

PART II

BALLOT AS TO APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT

9.—(1) Where, in consequence of an application under Part I of this Schedule (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as ' the initial application '), the Industrial Court has made an order under paragraph 7(2) of this Schedule, then, at any time before the end of the period allowed by the order, any of the relevant workers may make an application to the Industrial Court under this Part of this Schedule.

(2) In this Part of this Schedule—

(a) 'the relevant workers', in relation to an application under this Part of this Schedule, means those workers who, on the date of that application, are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply if it were made on that date, and

(b) `the proposed agreement' means an agreement in the form of the draft which accompanied the initial application.

10. The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application under this Part of this Schedule unless the Court is satisfied that not less than one-fifth of the relevant workers have signified in writing their concurrence in the application.

11.—(1) Where the Industrial Court entertains an application under this Part of this Schedule, the Court shall request the Commission to arrange for a ballot to be aken on the question whether the proposed agreement should be made.

(2) The persons eligible to vote in the ballot shall be the workers who, on a date specified by the Commission in making arrangements for the ballot, are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply.

12. For the purpose of complying with a request made by the Industrial Court under paragraph 11(1) of this Schedule, the Commission shall determine whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or is to be taken under the supervision of the Commission by some other body, and in either case what arrangements would best secure—

(a) that the ballot will be properly conducted, and
(b) that the voting in the ballot will be kept secret,
and shall arrange for the ballot to be taken accordingly.

13. After the ballot has been taken, the Commission shall report the result of the ballot to the Industrial Court, to the person who made the application in pursuance of which the ballot w as taken and to each of the parties to the initial application.

14. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have voted in favour of the proposed agreement, the Industrial Court shall make an order approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement which accompanied the initial application.

15. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have not voted in favour of the proposed agreement, then—

(a) the Industrial Court shall not approve the proposals, and
(b) during the period of two years beginning with the date on which that result was so reported, the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application under Part I of this Schedule if it relates (wholly or in part) to a description of workers to whom the initial application related.

PART III

BALLOT AS TO CONTINUANCE OF AGREEMENT

16. Subject to the next following paragraph, at any time when an approved closed shop agreement is in force, any worker to whom the agreement applies may make an application to the Industrial Court for a ballot as to the continuance of the agreement.

17. The Industrial Court shall not entertain any such application—

(a) unless it is satisfied that not less than one-fifth of the workers to whom the agreement for the time being applies have signified in writing their concurrence in the application, or
(b) if the application is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a ballot under Part II of this Schedule relating to that agreement was reported by the Commission to the Court, or
(c) if the application is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a previous ballot under this Part of this Schedule relating to that agreement was reported by the Commission to the Court.

18.—(1) Where the Industrial Court entertains an application under this Part of this Schedule, the Court shall request the Commission to arrange for a ballot to be taken on the question whether the agreement to which the application relates should continue in force.

(2) Paragraph 12 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to a request under this paragraph as it has effect in relation to a request under paragraph 11(1) of this Schedule.

(3) The persons eligible to vote in the ballot shall be the workers to whom the approved closed shop agreement for the time being applies.

19. After the ballot has been taken, the Commission shall report the result of the ballot to the Industrial Court, to the person who made the application in pursuance of which the ballot was taken and to each of the parties to the agreement to which the ballot relates.

20. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have not voted in favour of the continuance of the approved closed shop agreement—

(a) the Industrial Court shall revoke the order under Part I or Part II of this Schedule approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement in accordance with which that agreement was made, and
(b) the agreement shall thereupon cease to be an approved closed shop agreement.

PART IV

SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM AGREEMENT

21.—(1) Every approved closed shop agreement shall include provisions as to the principles in accordance with which, in the case of specially exempted workers, appropriate contributions to a charity are to be calculated.

(2) Subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act shall (with the necessary modifications) have effect in relation to the formulation of those principles as they have effect in relation to the provisions of an agency shop agreement relating to appropriate contributions to a trade union in lieu of membership of the trade union.

22.—(1) Any worker who—

(a) in accordance with an approved closed shop agreement would, unless specially exempted, be required to become a member of a trade union, but
(b) objects on grounds of conscience to being a member of a trade union,
may propose to the trade union that, instead of becoming a member of it, he should agree to pay appropriate contributions to a charity to be determined by agreement between him and the trade union.

(2) If the trade union agrees to the proposal, and the amount of the contributions, and the charity to which they are to be paid, are agreed between the worker and the trade union, the worker shall by virtue of that agreement be specially exempted for the purposes of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act, and (subject to the next following paragraph) specially exempted' in that section shall be construed accordingly.

23.—(1) If, in consequence of a proposal made by a worker to a trade union under paragraph 22 of this Schedule, a dispute arises between him and the trade union on any question—

(a) whether his objections to being a member of a trade union are genuinely objections on grounds of conscience, or
(b) to which charity the contributions should be payable, or
(c) what contributions to a charity would be appropriate contributions in accordance with the approved closed shop agreement, or
(d) whether the provisions of that agreement relating to contributions to a charity conform to the requirements of paragraph 21(2) of this Schedule,
the question in dispute may, in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations, be referred to and determined by an industrial tribunal.

(2) Any matter determined by the decision of an industrial tribunal on a reference under this paragraph shall have the like effect for the purposes of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act and of this Part of this Schedule as if it had been agreed between the worker and the trade union.

PART V

SUPPLEMENTARY

24. Where an approved closed shop agreement is made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions, any reference in section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be construed as a reference to that employer or any of those employers, as the case may be.

25. Where an approved closed shop agreement is made between an employers' association and one or more trade unions—

(a) if the agreement is expressed to be made by the employers' association on behalf


of one or more employers specified in the agreement, any reference in section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be cnstrued as a reference to that employer or any of those employers, as the case may be, but
(b) in any other case, any reference in that section to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be construed as a reference to any employer who is for the time being a member of that employers' association, whether he was a member of it on the date on which the agreement was made or not.

26. In this Schedule approved closed shop agreement' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) (1) of this Act and ' charity' has the meaning assigned to it by section 9(3) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the Schedule be added to the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 154.

[For Division List 333 see col. 839.]

Schedule 3

REQUIREMENTS AS TO RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS.

Anmdment proposed: No. 108, in page 123, line 34. at end insert—
14. The rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules in accordance with section 81(5) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 155.

[For Division List 334 see col. 841.]

Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time this day.

REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. George Younger.]

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (HUNTERSTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

11.41 a.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I had hoped that on this important subject I would address one of the fullest Houses I have experienced in my 30 years as an hon. Member. However, I am glad to see as many hon. Members in their places on both sides as are here because this is a matter of very great importance indeed.
Most surviving hon. Members—if "surviving" is the right word after that all-night marathon—are agreed, if they are agreed on anything, that we need more industrial development in Scotland. With the unemployment figures at their present level, we could hardly want anything else. However, what we need is not just any development anywhere, because that could defeat its own object, but the right development in the right place, and this is where differences and divergences of opinion are apt to crop up.
As soon as one starts comparing the relative merits and demerits of various projects and sites, one comes up against many highly complex and technical problems which require expert knowledge, in particular in deciding what contribution this or that project is likely to make to the economy, how much employment it will give and whether the advantages of siting it here or there are likely to outweigh the disadvantages.
Moreover, no one project or site can be considered in isolation. It must be thought of as forming part of a larger whole—as part of the social and economic life of Scotland, first and foremost, but also of the United Kingdom—and it must be thought of in relation to amenities and the environment, because heavy industry is not everything. Recreation and health are also important, as is the tourist industry, which is of far greater economic importance than many people realise and which cannot exist if one takes away the amenities on which it depends.
All these considerations clearly apply to the present proposals for industrial development at or near Hunterston.


When the proposals for iron ore and oil terminals, a steel complex and an oil refinery were first put forward, it was clear that before any conclusion could be arrived at a lot of questions would need answering—questions about the value of these projects to the economy, the number of jobs they would provide locally and the suitability of this particular site by comparison with other possible sites from a technical, navigational, security and amenity point of view.
These were questions which it was beyond most of us to answer, but Ayr County Council, with negligible expert advice, somehow managed within a few weeks to arrive at what one can only describe as a snap decision in favour of immediate and indiscriminate industrialisation.
This decision, not unnaturally, aroused great indignation locally. The result, as we know, was the establishment of a public inquiry, which, I understand, cost more and lasted longer than any public inquiry in the history of Scotland. Nevertheless, it was welcomed by most people because it was felt that it would provide the answers for which we were looking.
I do not think anybody could have felt anything but impressed by the care and thoroughness with which the public inquiry was conducted and the scrupulously fair way in which the immense volume of evidence that was brought forward was considered, sifted and evaluated. By the time it was over everyone concerned would have been prepared to accept as impartial and well-founded the conclusions arrived at by the distinguished reporter.
Most people felt that, after all the time that had been taken and all the money that had been spent by both private individuals and the public, as taxpayers and ratepayers, the report would provide the answers for which we were looking—answers which it would otherwise have been impossible to arrive at. The majority of people felt that the purpose of such an inquiry was to discover what was really in the public interest and to enable everyone to see that justice was being done.
They were encouraged in this view by the outcome, at about this time, of the

earlier Murco public inquiry, when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who yields to no one in his anxiety to bring industry to Scotland, nevertheless decided to accept the reporter's recommendation against the siting of an American oil refinery and terminal higher up the Clyde.
When it became known that the reporter had indeed provided answers—rational, well-reasoned and well-informed answers—to practically all the questions to which answers were required—and, what is more, answers which took due account of the needs of industry, opinion and amenity—it appeared to most of those concerned that a satisfactory solution had been arrived at.
This is why it came as all the more of a shock when they read on and discovered that the Secretary of State had quite arbitrarily rejected most of the reporter's recommendations and, in particular, those which sought to safeguard the natural amenities of one of the most beautiful areas of Scotland.
What has made the verdict even more unacceptable is that there seems very little reason to suppose that any of the projects which actually look like coming to Hunterston, with the exception of the ore terminal, will really be worth while, will bring much employment locally or could not have been equally well sited somewhere else.
I know that in theory there is no appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. But I also happen to know that he and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity in the next couple of days literally to go over things again on the spot. I very much hope that they will use this opportunity to reconsider the whole problem, to have another think.
We are told that, to survive, the existing Scottish steel industry must have a new ore terminal, and, if the middle Clyde is the best site for it, there clearly are, as the reporter recognised, strong arguments for putting it there—although it does not appear to me that the rival claims of Ardrossan, in my constituency, which is crying out for development, only three miles away, or Ardmore for that matter, have ever been properly examined as alternatives to Hunterston.
I want to look at the proposal for what amounts to a new industrial estate


adjoining a possible superport. I do not find this proposal at all convincing. A new mammoth, £1,000 million steel complex, if it ever came, though clearly disastrous to the environment, would at least be industrialisation on the grand scale—and pollution on the grand scale. Apart, however, from the immense financial and social cost of shifting Scottish steel from Motherwell to Hunterston, there seem to be a number of hard economic reasons why this may never happen. Nor am I convinced that a superport, as envisaged in the Oceanspan scheme, is very likely to materialise either.
It seems that by rezoning the area for industry in anticipation of something that quite possibly will not happen, my right hon. Friend is all too likely to end up by falling between two stools and ruining the amenities of the Clyde for the sake of one or two tin-tack factories which would give very little employment locally and which could perfectly well have been sited elsewhere. In view of the conclusion reached by the reporter, I hope that my right hon. Friend may even now feel able to reconsider his decision on this issue.
But these are, for the most part, only long-term possibilities. On the other hand, there is one immediate project on which the Secretary of State has not yet given a ruling; namely, Chevron Oil's application to build forthwith a shoreside refinery and oil terminal at Portencross on the south side of the peninsula. I need not rehearse the arguments which led the reporter to recommend that this proposal should be rejected: the damage to amenities, agriculture and tourism, the danger of pollution, the negligible benefit to the economy, the small number of jobs involved and so on. But, instead of accepting the reporter's recommendation and rejecting the application out of hand, the Secretary of State saw fit to delay a decision until fresh evidence could be adduced by one of his right hon. Friends on behalf of the oil company.
This evidence, now that we have it, does not, quite frankly, amount to much. It purports to show, first, that, instead of a surplus, there is a shortage of refining capacity in the United Kingdom. Secondly, it tells us in effect that the profits to the American shareholders will

not be quite so big if Chevron has to pipe the oil from the terminal to the refinery.
To take the second of these pieces of evidence first, it seems that the information is self-evident and not particularly relevant. We naturally wish the American shareholders well, but on condition that their gain should not be our loss, as in this case it undoubtedly would be.
As for the first bit of evidence, even if it were true last month, it has surely lost much of its validity this month with the welcome news of the proposed British Petroleum refinery at Grangemouth. In this connection, I emphasise the word "British".
So the Secretary of State, having in the first place resorted to the somewhat surprising expedient of allowing selected witnesses to adduce additional evidence after the inquiry was supposed to be closed, now seems, with the emergence of yet another set of facts, to have been neatly hoist with his own petard, which is surely something which should not have happened to such a distinguished artillery officer.
I hope once again, that in these most unusual circumstances he will read the report again and then follow the excellent example of his predecessor in office by refusing to let this beautiful stretch of the Clyde be defiled and polluted, all for a mess of American oil.
There remains one vital question, namely, that of nuclear security. When a first nuclear power station was sited at Hunterston, more than 10 years ago, it was officially stated that for safety reasons it had to be sited well away from any large centres of industry or population—which is primarily why it was put at Hunterston. But now there is talk of steel complexes and oil refineries and the infrastructure that goes with them all being sited only a few hundred yards from the original nuclear power station, Hunterston A, and any question of security seems at first sight to have been entirely forgotten.
I happen to know, however, that it has not been entirely forgotten, because, by a rare bit of luck, whoever happened to be licking up a letter to me from the Scottish Office under the last Administration enclosed the whole of the departmental minutes along with the Minister's reply. From these I was able


to discover that at that time, in 1969, the original extremely stringent restrictions on Hunterston A were still regarded as being in force. Now, for some reason, possibly some security reason, the public inquiry does not seem to have elicited a clear answer on this point. But I want a clear answer, because for thousands of my constituents this could literally be a matter of life or death.
So I would ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to tell me whether, as of now, the former security restrictions on Hunterston are or are not still regarded as applying, and, if not, whether this is because these restrictions, which were still in force in 1969, are now, in 1971, deemed, on technical and scientific grounds, to be out of date, or whether—and this I can hardly believe possible—it is because the Government's enthusiasm for industrial development on this particular site is such that they are prepared to take a gamble with the lives of a good many thousands of my constituents.

12 noon

Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and to the Minister for allowing me a minute or two to comment on this matter and make the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends clear.
To take up the past point made by the hon. Gentleman, I agree that he is perfectly entitled to ask for that assurance in view of the seriousness of the matter which he has raised, which is one which concerned us, and still concerns us, on this side. However, despite his remarks about the inquiry, the nature of the facts elicited at the inquiry, and the reporter's own opinion, we very much agree with the Secretary of State's decision on this vital matter.
We are concerned to know whether this lengthy inquiry is to be reconstituted and yet again extended. May we know whether the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that the inquiry should be reopened? It is most important that we know what is happening in this area. It is a matter of great urgency, and it is one entirely for the Secretary of State in his capacity as planning Minister for Scotland.
While we are glad that the Prime Minister is very soon to fly over this

area with the Secretary of State—we wish them bon voyage—I should make clear clear that we regard this foray as one in which the Prime Minister is assessing, with the Secretary of State, the need for a large steel complex in this area, and that question is most pertinent to the Prime Minister's visit.
We understand from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is at present going on a six-to-eight-week review of the steel investment programme, which vitally affects the future investment of the British Steel Corporation. We hope that the Scottish Office will convince the Prime Minister that, should there be a large plant—and we all hope that there will be one—it should be sited at the best navigable site; namely, at Hunterston, for there is nowhere else in the United Kingdom.

12.2 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on securing this Adjournment debate on a matter which I know to be of the greatest importance to all his constituents, whose interests he has been closely watching throughout the whole controversy. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done that and also to the manner in which he has raised the matter in the House today. Also, I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for keeping his remarks brief so that I may have time, I hope, to answer a number of the points which have been raised.
Perhaps it would be most helpful to the House if I first briefly recapitulated the history and the present position of the proposals for development at Hunterston. At the beginning of 1969 the Clyde Estuary Development Study Report identified Hunterston as potentially a deep-water terminal and as a possible site for steel working and oil refining. Later that year, the Chevron Oil Company applied for planning permission for an oil refinery with associated marine oil terminal.
It seemed desirable to look at all the possible uses of the peninsula as comprehensively as possible, and it was arranged that Ayr County Council would submit a development plan amendment zoning land for an ore terminal, a


general user port, an integrated steel works and an oil refinery with marine oil terminal. It submitted this amendment at the end of June, 1969. A great many objections were received and a public local inquiry—my hon friend said it was the longest for a long time, if not the longest ever—in preparation for which a great deal of evidence was circulated in writing beforehand, was arranged. This inquiry lasted from mid-November, 1969, to mid-February, 1970.
The report was received last summer, and the Secretary of State's decisions on it were issued on 9th December, 1970. Briefly, these decisions were that land should be zoned for an ore terminal and a general user port; that a further tract of land would be zoned for industry, but that a decision as to whether this land could be used for an integrated steel works would be postponed until the economic case for doing so could be more closely examined on the basis of a planning application.
No decision was taken on the oil refinery because it had emerged during consideration of the report that the evidence affecting the oil refinery application was in some important respects out of date. Since December, a memorandum by the Department of Trade and Industry supplementing the evidence on the oil refinery has been circulated to parties and has drawn a good deal of comment. It seems likely that the inquiry will have to be reopened at the beginning of May to consider the supplementary evidence by the Department of Trade and Industry and the comments on it, but this is still under consideration. I assure the House that there will be no undue delay in my right hon. Friend coming to a decision on this point.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will it be circumscribed to this issue or will it go wider?

Mr. Younger: It will be confined to the issue of the evidence, the new evidence, produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in connection with this particular part of the proposals.
My hon. Friend suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had rejected most of the recommendations of the reporter. With respect, I ask him to look at that again, because my

right hon. Friend's actual decision letter does not bear that interpretation. In fact, he departed from the reporter only in asking for more evidence on the Chevron proposal and on zoning for industry, without commitment to the land being proposed for the steel development itself.
My hon. Friend asked, also, why these recommendations of the reporter were rejected at all. I wonder whether that reflects some misunderstanding of the purpose of public inquiries and the rôle of reporters taking them. A reporter is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry and for the collation of the evidence in writing in such a way as to facilitate systematic examination leading to a decision. My right hon. Friend is very grateful to Mr. Keith, the reporter in this case, for his performance of this Herculean task.
A reporter may also make recommendations, and he usually does so, although he is not absolutely obliged to do so. But he has no responsibility whatever for the decision. This rests solely with the Secretary of State, and, so far as I know, has always done so. To regard any Secretary of State as bound by the recommendations of the reporter would, in effect, be to accord the power of decision to a private individual, who, whatever his personal merits, had no statutory responsibility and no elective office.

Sir F. Maclean: But will not my hon. Friend agree that in more than 90 per cent. of cases it is usual for the Secretary of State to accept the reporter's conclusions?

Mr. Younger: I could not be precise about it, but certainly in the majority of cases that is done, and it is a reflection of the excellence of the general system. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that ultimately the decision must be, and is, taken by the Secretary of State.
The safeguard of democracy is that the Secretary of State must take his decision on the evidence assembled for him by the reporter and must publicly relate his reasons to that evidence. I am sure that most people will agree that that is exactly what my right hon. Friend did.
My hon. Friend stressed the harm to amenity which would result from development at Hunterston. I do not doubt or deny that for a moment. Indeed,


it was made perfectly clear by the reporter that the harm to amenity would be very great. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of this, too, as a passage in his decision letter of 9th December makes perfectly clear:
The Secretary of State accepts that the siting of a steel works at Hunterston would have very serious am city consequences. The long-term economic and social advantages of doing so for Great Britain as a whole, and for Scotland particularly, could prove, however, to be more than sufficient to offset the amenity disadvantages …".
That passage refers to the proposals for a steel works, which cannot be fully explored until a planning application has been made. I hope that the balance of these factors will be borne in mind by all concerned, because they are of the utmost importance in our consideration of all these questions.
My hon. Friend raised an important question when he asked what would happen in the future in relation to other applications. The first point to make about any further planning applications which may be received is that they will be called in and dealt with by the Secretary of State himself. That is the most important effect of the decision as regards the area of land originally zoned for the steel works.
From now on, the Secretary of State will personally oversee each and every application in respect of that particular piece of ground. Therefore, the fears which my hon. Friend expressed can be allayed. I think he suggested that the ground might find itself covered with a succession of tin-tack factories. I cannot think that that is likely. Indeed, the Secretary of State's oversight of each application is some assurance that he has no intention, and would not, I am sure, have any intention, of allowing that sort of development on these sites.
My hon. Friend also asked about the alternative sites. Of course there are

alternative sites which were considered during the inquiry. He suggested that these possibilities still merited further exploration. I ask him to look at the report again, because examination of it will show that both Ardmore and Ardrossan were given exhaustive attention during the inquiry. Individuals may disagree with the conclusions of both the reporter and the Secretary of State on the relative merits of the three, but I am not aware that any new evidence affecting this issue has come to light since the inquiry.
As between the three alternatives, the reporter emerged with a clear conviction of the superiority of Hunterston as a deep water shipping terminal. Once again I quote from the letter of 9th December:
Hunterston is superior to the other sites considered at the inquiry, having regard to depth of water; number of days in the year for safe berthing; the cost of works for equipping the terminal. Hunterston could provide access for the largest ships envisaged at present, and offers sheltered waters where they will be able to exploit their economic advantages to the full by prompt berthing, unloading and loading. It is free of the dredging and navigational difficulties of Ardmore. If large ships only are to be provided for, facilities at Hunterston can be provided at appreciably less cost than at Ardmore and for marginally less than Ardrossan. If both large and small ships are to be provided for, it is much cheaper than either of these possible alternatives.
I do not know of anything that can be added to that.
My hon. Friend also asked about the question of additional evidence on the oil refinery. I have mentioned that we expect the possibility—

The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve noon.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[12.11 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Farr, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
Kinsey, J. R.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kirk, Peter


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fidler, Michael
Kitson, Timothy


Astor, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Atkins, Humphrey
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fleteher-Cooke, Charles
Lambton, Antony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lane, David


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Foster, Sir John
Langford-HOM, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Fowler, Norman
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Batsford, Brian
Fox, Marcus
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cosport)
Fry, Petto-
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Benyon, W.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John


Biffen, John
Gibson Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Biggs-Davison, John
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J B.
McMaster, Stanley


Body, Richard
Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Boscawen, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bowden, Andrew
Gower, Raymond
Madel, David


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gray, Hamish
Maginnis, John E.


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Marpies, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Marten, Nell


Brewis, John
Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mather, Carol


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gryll, Michael
Maude, Angus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bryan, Paul Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Buck, Antony
Half-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Burden, F. A.
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman


Butler, Adam (Boswortth)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cary, Sir Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Channon, Paul
Hastngs, Stephen
Molyneaux, James


Chapman, Sydney Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernie


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hawkins, Paul
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Churchill, W. S.
Hay, John
Monro, Hector


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Clegg, Walter
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Cockeram, Eric
Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cooke, Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Mudd, David


Coombs, Derek
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Cordle, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Neave, Airey


Cormack, Patrick
Holland, Philip
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Costain, A. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Critchley, Julian
Hooson, Emlyn
Normanton, Tom


Crouch, David
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hornby, Richard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Curran, Charles
Hernsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigale)
Osborn, John



Howell, David (Guildford)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.
Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Dean, Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pereival, Ian


Dixon, Piers
Iremonger, T. L.
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner



Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton


Drayson, G. B.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Eden, Sir John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tte-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)







Rees, Peter (Dover)
Sproat, Iain
Vaughan, Eric C.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stainton, Keith
vickers, Dame Joan


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stanbrook, Ivor
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Hillsdale, Julian
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, John
Warren, Kenneth


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Rost, Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank, (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman
Wilkinson, John


Scott-Hopkins, James
Temple, John M.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharpies, Richard
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Worsley, Marcus


Sinclair, Sir George
Tilney, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn, N. R.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trew, Peter



Soref, Harold
Tugendhat, Christopher
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Speed, Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Spence, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Jasper More.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Harper, Joseph
Orme, Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Atkinson, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchan, Norman
lrvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur(Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Cacrnarvon)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Cant, R. B.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Roper, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sillars, James


Concannon, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Crawshaw, Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cronin, John
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Latham, Arthur
Steel, David


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Fisher, Mrs.Dori(B'ham,Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, AH Saints)


Fischer, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Molloy, William
Wilson William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Handing, William
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael








Division No. 279.]
AYES
[12.25 a.m.



Fowler, Norman
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil


Astor, John
Gibson-Watt, David
Mather, Carol


Atkins, Humphrey
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maude, Angus


Awdry, Daniel
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Cower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
Molyneaux, James


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Money, Ernie


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Montgomery, Fergus


Body, Richard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Boscawen, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bowden, Andrew
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David


Braine, Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar


Bray, Ronald
Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Brewis, John
Havers, Michael
Neave, Airey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hawkins, Paul
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Gryan, Paul
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nott, John


Buchan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Buck, Antony
Hicks, Robert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John


Burden, F. A.
Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Channon, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pink, R. Bonner


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pounder, Rafton


Church, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke., Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cockcram, Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cordle, John
Jessel, Toby
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, 8.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Critchley, Julian
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crowder, F. P.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Curran, Charles
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridsdale, Julian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Harry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dixon, Piers
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kirk, Peter
Royle, Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Sharpies, Richard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Emery, Peter
Le Marchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sinclair, Sir George


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fell, Anthony
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Loveridge, John
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
McCrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Fisher, N'gel (Surbiron)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Sproat, Iain


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Stainton, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)







Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)
Tilney, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stokes, John
Trew, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Sruttaford, Dr. Tom
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wilkinson, John


Sutcliffe, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Waddington, David
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Worsley, Marcus


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tebbit, Norman
Wall, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George


Temple, John M.
Walters, Dennis



Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Hector Monro and


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Bradley, Tom
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick, Cacrwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jegcr,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Roper, John


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hamptonN,E.)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Sillars, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Driberg, Tom
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Tinn, James


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tuck, Raphael


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric

Division No. 280.]
AYES
[12.36 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Bowden, Andrew


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Brains, Bernard


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Benyon, W.
Bray, Ronald


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Brewis, John


Astor, John
Bitten, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Awdry, Daniel
Baker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Bryan, Paul


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Balniel, Lord
Boscawen, Robert
Buck, Antony


Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Bullus, Sir Eric







Burden, F. A.
Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornsby-Smith Rt.Hn.DamePatricla
Pounder, Ration


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Rugate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, Paul
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockeram, Eric
Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Coombs, Derek
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rost, Peter


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
St. John-Stsvas, Norman


Curran, Charles
Kirk, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharpies, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Antony
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Drayson, G. B.
Lane, David
Simeons, Charles


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sinclair, Sir George


Dykes, Hugh
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eden, Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Soref, Harold


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Speed, Keith


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Spence, John


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Eyre, Reginald
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
Stokes, John


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Sutcliffe, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Tapsell, Peter


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fowler, Norman
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)

Temple, John M.



Mawby, Ray



Fry, Peter

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret.


Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon S.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tilney, John


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Miscampbeil, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Trew, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Corst, John
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Cower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernle
Vickers, Dame Joan


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
waddington, David


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Cummer, Selwyn
More, Jasper
Walters, Dennis


Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Warren, Kenneth


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Wiggin, Jerry


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wilkinson, John


Hastings, Stephen
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Havers Michael
Normanton, Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher



Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Woodnutt, Mark


Heseltine, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Worsley, Marcus


Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Holland, Philip
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn








NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Prescott, John


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, Will am (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roderick,Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dr,or)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Roper, John


Clark, David (Colme Valley)
John, Brynmor
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Concannon, J. D.
domes, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Sillars, James


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.)
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Small, William


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Strang, Gavin


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Taverne, Dick


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, AH Saints)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Hamling, William
Ogden, Eric

Division No. 282.]
AYES
12.58 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Drayson, G. B.
Howells, David (Guildford)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eden, Sir John
Hunt, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Astor, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Atkins, Humphrey
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
James, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Balniel, Lord
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jopling, Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fidler, Michael
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biffen, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Biggs-Davison, John
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Kimball, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fortescue, Tim
Kinsey, J. R.


Boscawen, Robert
Fowler, Norman
Kirk, Peter


Bossom, Sir Clive




Bowden, Andrew
Fox, Marcus
Kitson, Timothy


Bray, Ronald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Brewis, John
Fry, Peter
Knox, David


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gardner, Edward
Lane, David


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
G[...]bson-Watt, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Gilbert


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gorst, John
Loveridge, John


Burden, F. A.
Cower, Raymond
McCrindle, R. A.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gray, Hamish
McLaren, Martin


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Green, Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Gary, Sir Robert
Grieve, Percy
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gummer, Selwyn
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Madel, David


Churchill, W. S.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maginnis, John E.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Marten, Neil


Clegg, Walter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mather, Carol


Cockeram, Eric
Harrison, Col. Sir Hanwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Cooke, Robert
Hasethurst, Alan
Mawby, Ray


Coombs, Derek
Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Cordle, John
Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cormack, Patrick
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Costain, A, P.
Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Heseltins, Michael
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)


Crouch, David
Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Crowder, F. P.
Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Molyneaux, James


Curran, Charles
Holland, Philip
Money, Ernle D.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hordern, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Dean, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Montgomery, Fergus


Dixon, Piers
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
More, Jasper


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)







Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Thomas, Rt Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mudd, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Murton, Oscar
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Tilney, John


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Rest, Peter
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Trew, Peter


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Normanton, Tom
Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Oppenheim, Mrs, Sally
Scott-Hopkins, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharpies, Richard
Vickers, Dame Joan


Osborn, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Waddington, David


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Simeons, Charles
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Ward, Dame Irene


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mhigton)
Warren, Kenneth


Pink, R, Bonner
Soref, Harold
Weatherill, Bernard


Pounder, Rafton
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Timothy
Stokes, John
Wolirige-Gordon, Patrick


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Sutcliffe, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Tapsell, Peter
Woodnutt, Mark


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Worsley, Marcus


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mr. Hector Monro and


Ridsdale, Julian
Tebbit, Norman
Mr. Keith Speed.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric


Armstrong, Ernest
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bidwell, Sydney
Houghon, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Bob (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne,W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;st.P'cras, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted.
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
StaKard, A. w.


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Matron, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fisher, Mrs. Dorts (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Hudelersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Flecher, Ted (Darlington)
McIlish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michaet
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Gelding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. William Hamlng and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Division No. 283.]
AYES
[1.12 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gray, Hamish
Neave, Airey


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Green, Alan
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Astor, John
Grieve, Percy
Normanton, Tom


Atkins, Humphrey
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mr. Sally


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gummer, Selwyn
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Benyon, w.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Blaker, Peter
Haselhurst, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Body, Richard
Havers, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Boscawen, Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Easlleigh)


Bowden, Andrew
Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bray, Ronald
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Raison, Timothy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hordarn, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hunt, John
Ridley, Hn Nicholas


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Cary, Sir Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, Paul
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter



Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Churchill, W. S.
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Sharpies, Richard


Cockeram, Eric
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kinsey, J. R.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Coombs, Derek
Kirk, Peter
Simeons, Charles


Cooper, A. E.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Soref, Harold


Cronin, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence, John


Crowder, F, P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sproat, Iain


Curran, Charles
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.
Longden, Gilbert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dean, Paul
Loveridge, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Bolper)


Dixon, Piers
MrCrindle, R. A.
Stokes, John


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Sutcliffe, John


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Tapsell, Peter


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Catheart)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Eyre, Reginald
Marten, Neil
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Farr, John
Mather, Carol
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S,)


Fell, Anthony
Mawby, Ray
Tilney, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fidler, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trew, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fortascue, Tim
Mrtchell, David (Basingstoke)
vickers, Dame Joan


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Waddington, David


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Frasar, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Money, Ernie D.
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward
Monro, Hector
Ward, Dame Irene


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Gorst, John
Mudd, David
Wilkinson, John







Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark
TELLERS FOB THE AYES:


Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Paul Hawkins aud


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Wylre, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
O'Halloran, Michael


Armstrong, Ernest
Hardy, Peter
Orme, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S,
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Leslie
Pendry, Tom


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Prescott, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Janner, Gneville
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Roper, John


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rose, Paul B.


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Sikars, James


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Dalyell, Tarn
Lamond, James
Skinnier, Dennis


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stallart), A. W.


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Taverne, Dick


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marks, Kenneth
Wellbeloved, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Foot, Michael
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Gelding, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. William Handing and


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ogden, Eric

Division No. 284.]
AYES
[1.23 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &amp; Nalrn)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey
Channen, Paul
Fair, John


Awdry, Daniel
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Churchill, W. S.
Fidler, Michael


Balnief, Lord
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Benyon, W.
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cooke, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, John
Coombes, Derek
Fowler, Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooper, A. E.
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Cordle, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Cormack, Patrick
Fry, Peter


Body, Richard
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward


Boscawen, Robert
Critchley, Julian
Gibson-Watt, David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bowden, Andrew
Crowder, F. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Curran, Charles
Goodhart, Philip


Brewis, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, Jack
Goodhew, Victor


Brinton, Sir Tafton
Dean, Paul
Gorst, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Gower, Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Green, Alan


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Dykes, Hugh
Grieve, Percy


Buck, Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grylle, Michael







Gummer, Selwyn
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Simeons, Charles


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hannan, John (Exeter)
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Hastings, Stephen
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Havers, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Spenes, John


Hawkins, Paul
Money, Ernle D.
Sproat, Iain


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Stainton, Keith


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stokes, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Sutcliffe, John


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Tapsell, Peter


Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Howell, David (Guildord)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Tebbit, Norman


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, John Straining (Monmouth)


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)


Iremonger, T. L.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Percival, Ian
Trew, Peter


Jessell, Toby
Peyton, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Johnson Smith, G, (E. Grinstead)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Jopling, Michael
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Waddington, David


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Kinsey, J, R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Kitson, Timothy
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walters, Dennis


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


Knox, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


Lane, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wells, John (Maidstona)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees-Davies, W. R.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, R.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


McLaren, Martin
Ridsdale, Julian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Rost, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Maddan, Martin
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Madel, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Maginnis, John E.
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marten, Neil
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Mather, Carol
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Mawby, Ray
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Judd, Frank


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bidwell, Sydney
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamond, James


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Foot, Michael
Latham, Arthur


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Ginsburg, David
Lipton, Marcus


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, South)
Golding, John
Lomas, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McBride, Neil


Concannon, J. D.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McCartney, Hugh


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cronin, John
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Dalyell, Tarn
Heffer, Eric S.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Marks, Kenneth


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mendelson, John


Dempsey, James
Janner, Greville
Millan, Bruce


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Driberg, Tom
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras, S.)
Molloy, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
John, Brynmor
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Dunnett, Jack
Jones. Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)







Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James


Murray, Ronald King
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Torney, Tom


Ogden, Eric
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


O'Haltoran, Michael
Sillars, James
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Penary, Tom
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Prescott, John
Stallard, A. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)



Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Strang, Gavin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Swain, Thomas
Mr. William Hamling.


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Taverne, Dick
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Roper, John
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

Division No. 285.]
AYES
[1.35 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
Maddan, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fraser. Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil


Balniel, Lord
Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol


Benyon, W.
Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell. Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Boscawen, Robert
Green, Alan
Moate, Roger


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James


Bowden, Andrew
Criffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Money, Ernle D.


Bray, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Brewis, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Montgomery, Fergus


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
More, Jasper


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mudd, David


Bullus, Sir Eric
Haselhurst, Alan
Murton, Oscar


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hastings, Stephen
Neave, Airey


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Havers, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Normanton, Tom


Cary, Sir Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Chapman, Sydney
Hicks, Robert
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hiley, Joseph
Osborn, John


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)



Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Clegg, Walter
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cockeram, Eric
Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Pink, R. Bonner


Coombs, Derek
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pounder, Rafton


Cooper, A. E.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
Hunt, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Critchtey, Julian
James, David
Raison, Timothy


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Curran, Charles
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Dean, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdate, Julian


Dykes, Hugh
Kinsey, J. R.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Eden, Sir John
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Lane, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Felt, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Sharpies, Richard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)







Simeons, Charles
Tebbit, Norman
Weatherill, Bernard


Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Soref, Harold
Tilney, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Spence, John
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Sproat, Iain
Trew, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stainton, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wood, Rt. Ht. Richard


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Stewart-Smith, O. G. (Belper)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Woodnutt, Mark


Stokes, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Worsley, Marcus


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Waddington, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Sutcliffe, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)



Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Victor Goodhew and


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene
Mr. Keith Speed.


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Warren, Kenneth





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe'
Harper, Joseph
O'HaMoran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Moiloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. John Golding.

Division No. 286.]
AYES
[1.47 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bray, Ronald
Cooper, A. E.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Brewis, John
Cordle, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cormack, Patrick


Astor, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Costain, A. P.


Atkins, Humphrey
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Awdry, Daniel
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crouch, David


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Curran, Charles


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, MaJ. -Gen. James


Balniel, Lord
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Dean, Paul


Benyon, W.
Cary, Sir Robert
Dixon, Piers


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Channon, Paul
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Biffen, John
Chapman, Sydney
Drayson, G. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dykes, Hugh


Blaker, Peter
Churchill, W. S.
Eden, Sir John


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Body, Richard
Clegg, Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Boscawen, Robert
Cockeram, Eric
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cooke, Robert
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Coombs, Derek
Eyre, Reginald







Farr, John
Knox, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fell, Anthony
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fidler, Michael
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St, John-Stevas, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Loveridge, John
Scott, Nicholas


Fortescue, Tim
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Fox, Marcus
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Simeons, Charles


Gardner, Edward
Maddan, Martin
Sinclair, Sir George


Gibson-Watt, David
Mardel, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maginnis, John E.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Marten, Neil
Soref, Harold


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Speed, Keith


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sproat, Iain


Gower, Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sutcliffe, John


Gummer, Selwyn
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Money, Ernle
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Haselhurst, Alan
More, Jasper
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hastings, Stephen
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Havers, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hawkins, Paul
Mudd, David
Tilney, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey
Trew, Peter


Hicks, Robert
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tugendhat, Christopher


Hiley, Joseph
Normanton, Tom
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Nott, John
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs, Sally
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hordern, Peter
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Waddington, David


Hornby, Richard
Osborn, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Warren, Kenneth


Hunt, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pounder, Rafton
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Iremonger, T. L,
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


James, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wiggin, Jerry


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Wilkinson, John


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Jopling, Michael
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Woodnutt, Mark




Worsley, Marcus


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Kinsey, J. R.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kitson, Timothy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Ridsdale, Julian
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Ashton, Joe
Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Atkinson, Norman
Duffy, A. E. P,
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunnett, Jack
Janner, Greville


Bidwell, Sydney
Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
John, Brynmor


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Foot, Michael
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Forrester, John
Judd, Frank


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kaufman, Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kinnock, Neil


Concannon, J. D.
Ginsburg, David
Lamond, James


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Latham, Arthur


Cronin, John
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamling, William
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Darling, Rt Hn. George
Hardy, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Harper, Joseph
McBride, Neil


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Mackintosh, John P.







McNamara, J. Kevin
Prescott, John
Strang, Gavin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Price, William (Rugby)
Swain, Thomas


Mallalieu, J. P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Taverne, Dick


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Tinn, James


Mendelson, John
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Torney, Tom


Millan, Bruce
Roper, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rose, Paul B.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Molloy, William
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Whitehead, Phillip


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Sillars, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Ogden, Eric
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Small, William



Orme, Stanley
Spearing, Nigel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Palmer, Arthur
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. John Golding and


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Alan Fitch.


Pendry, Tom
Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Division No. 287.]
AYES
[1.57 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mawby, Ray


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fry, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Astor, John
Gardner, Edward
Mever, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Gibson-Watt, David
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, VV. H. K. (Banff)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, Lt. -Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Goodhew, Victor
Moate, Roger


Benyon, W.
Gorst, John
Molyneaux, James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernle D.


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Body, Richard
Gummer, Selwyn
Mudd, David


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Bryan, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Buck, Anthony
Heseltine, Michael
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hicks, Robert
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt, Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockerham, Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Coombs, Derek
James, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack, Patrick
Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Critchley, Julian
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Crouch, David
Jopling, Michael
Rost, Peter


Curran, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, James Maj. -Gen.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dean, Paul
Kinsey, J. R.
Scott, Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eden, Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Simeons, Charles


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveridge, John
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Sproat, Iain


Fidler, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maginnis, John E.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fowler, Norman
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John







Tapsell, Peter
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Waddington, David
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tebbit, Norman
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Woodnutt, Mark


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hcndon, s.)
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Warren, Kenneth



Tilney, John
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Jasper More and


Trew, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Tim Forteseue.


Tugendhat, Christopher
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Harper, Joseph
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bidwell, Sydney
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt, Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Dalyell, Tam
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Darting, Rt. Hn. George
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Latham, Arthur
Small, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, M.)
Spearing, Nigel


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, Dick


Eadie, Alex
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. John Golding and


Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Atan Fitch.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King

Division No. 288.]
AYES
[2.10 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Eden, Sir John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, Paul
Emery, Peter


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chapman, Sydney
Eyre, Reginald


Balniel, Lord
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Farr, John


Benyon, W.
Churchill, W. S.
Fell, Anthony


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fidler, Michael


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockeram, Eric
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet


Body, Richard
Coombs, Derek
Fortescue, Tim


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman


Bossom, Sir Clive
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Bowden, Andrew
Critchley, Julian
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bray, Ronald
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Brewis, John
Curran, Charles
Gardner, Edward


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj. -Gen. James
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bryan, Paul
Dean, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp; M)
Dixon, Piers
Goodhart, Philip


Buck, Antony
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Gorst, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.
Gower, Raymond







Gray, Hamish
Martin, Neil
Sheiton, William (Clapham)


Green, Alan
Mather, Carol
Simeons, Charles


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray
Sinclair, Sir George


Grylis, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Soref, Harold


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Spence, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sproat, Iain


Havers, Michael
Moate, Roger
Stainton, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayhoe, Barney
Money, Ernie D.
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper
Sutcliffe, John


Hiley, Joseph
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor. Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Hornby, Richard
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Normanton, Tom
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mirs. Sally
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hunt, John
Osborn, John
Trew, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Tuefendhat, Christophar


Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian
Urwin, T. W.


James, David
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vickers, Dame Joan


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pink, R. Bonner
Waddington, David


Jessel, Toby
Pounder, Rafton
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walters, Dennis


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Jopling, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Warren, Kerneth


Kimball, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Whiteraw, Rt. Hn. William


Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lane, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilkinson, John


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McCrindle, R. A.
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


McLaren, Martin
Rost, Peter
Wersley, Marcus


McMaster, Stanley
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman



McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Scott, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maddan, Martin
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Hector Monro and


Madel, David
Sharpies, Richard
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgli &amp; Whitby)





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regie)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Mantling, William
Mendeison, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardlganshire)


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Muckfield, Leslie
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Clark, David (Colne, Valley)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Murray, Ronald King


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Concannon, J, D.
Janner, Greville
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Prescott, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Deakins, Eric
Judd, Frank
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshlre, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Driberg, Tom
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Eadie, Aiex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
MoBride, Neil
Skinnier, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McCartney, Hugh
Small, William


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Stallard, A. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfleid, E.)
Strang, Gavin







Swain, Thomas
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Tinn, James
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Torney, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. John Golding and


Urwin, T. W.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Division No. 289.]
AYES
[2.23 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gorst, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Cower, Raymond
Pink, R. Bonner


Astor, John
Gray, Hamish
Pounder, Rafton


Atkins, Humphrey
Green, Alan
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)
Grylls, Michael
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Balniel, Lord
Gummer, Selwyn
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Benyon, W. R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biffen, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Havers, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Blaker, Piter
Hayhoe, Barney
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Robert
Hicks, Robert
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Rost, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bruce-Gardyre, J.
Hornby, Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bryan, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&amp;amp;M)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John
Sharpies, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Iremonger, T. L.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;amp;Nairn)
James, David
Simeons, Charles


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Smith, Dudley (W'wich &amp; L'mington)


Channon, Paul
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Soref, Harold


Chapman, Sydney
Jopling, Michael
Speed, Keith


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kimball, Marcus
Spence, John


Churchill, W. S.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sproat, Iain


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
Knox, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Coombs, Derek
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sutcliffe, John


Cormack, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Critchley, Julian
MoCrindle, R. A.
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Crouch, David
MoMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Curran, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj. Gen.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dean, Paul
Maddan, Martin
Trew, Peter


Dixon, Piers
Madel, David
Tugendhat, Christopher


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walters, Dennis


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene


Emery, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth


Eyre, Reginald
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Weatherill, Bernard


Farr, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fell, Anthony
Moate, Roger
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fidler, Michael
Molyneaux, James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Money, Ernie
Wiggin, Jerry


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Monro, Hector
Wilkinson, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fowler, Norman
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mudd, David
Worsley, Marcus


Fry, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Gardner, Edward
Normanton, Tom



Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Osborn, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Goodhart, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Cant, R. B.
Concannon, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Cronin, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Dalyell, Tarn







Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dempsey, James
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Small, William



McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Foot, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, j. Kevin
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strang, Gavin


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfiefd, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Golding, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Tinn, James


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Millan, Bruce
Torney, Tom


Handing, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hannan, William (G'gow, MaryhilI)
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitehead, Phillip


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Huckfield, Leslie
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Penary, Tom

Division No. 290.]
AYES
[2.35 a.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
James, David


Astor, John
Emery, Peter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Atkins, Humphrey
Eyre, Reginald
Jessel, Toby


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fell, Anthony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fidler, Michael
Jopling, Michael


Balniel, Lord
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Kimball, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kinsey, J. R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Fortescue, Tim
Kitson, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Fowler, Norman
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Fox, Marcus
Knox, David


Body, Richard
Fry, Peter
Lane, David


Boscawen, Robert
Gardner, Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gibson-Watt, David
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bowden, Andrew
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bray, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N &amp;amp; M)
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Buck, Antony
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gower, Raymond
Maddan, Martin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marten, Neil


Cary, Sir Robert
Crylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Channon, Paul
Cummer, Selwyn
Mawby, Ray


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke:, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Michael
Micampbell, Norman


Cookie, Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Coombs, Derek
Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cormack, Patrick
Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger


Costain, A. P.
Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James


Critchley, Julian
Hiley, Joseph
Money, Ernie D.


Crouch, David
Hid, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector


Curran, Charles
Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Hordern, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Dean, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Dixon, Piers
Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Mudd, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar


Drayson, G. B.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Normanton, Tom


Eden, Sir John
Hunt, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Osbom, John







Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sharpies, Richard
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Percival, Ian
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Simeons, Charles
Waddington, David


Pink, R. Bonner
Sinclair, Sir George
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Pounder, Rafton
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walters, Dennis


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Soref, Harold
Warren, Kenneth


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Spence, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Timothy
Sproat, Iain
White, Roger (Grave-send)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Sutcliffe, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Woodnutt, Mark


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Worsley, Marcus


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Rost, Peter
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)



Russell, Sir Ronald
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mr. Jasper Moore and


Scott, Nicholas
Trew, Peter
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tugendhat, Christopher





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Orme, Stanley


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Huckfield, Leslie
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pendry, Tom


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Prescott, John


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roper, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rose, Paul B.


Cronin, John
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Gerald
Sillars, James


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Small, William


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Spearing, Nigel


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Driberg, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Linton, Marcus
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
McBride, Neil
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Torney, Tom


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Madalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Wellbeloved, James


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William



Golding, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Grant, John D, (Islington, E.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King



Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ogden, Eric

Division No. 291.]
AYES
[2.45 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Body, Richard
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Astor, John
Boscawen, Robert
Cary, Sir Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Bossom, Sir Clive
Channon, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Bowden, Andrew
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bray, Ronald
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Balniel, Lord
Brews, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Clegg, Walter


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Cockeram, Eric


Bitten, John
Buck, Antony
Cooke, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Sir Eric
Coombs, Derek







Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Curran, Charles
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. James
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eden, Sir John
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharpies, Richard


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Spence, John


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Sproat, Iain


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Maginnis, John E.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fraser,Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Marten, Neil
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Gardner, Edward
Mawby, Ray
Sutcliffe, John


Gibson-Watt, David
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tapsell, Peter


Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Gower, Raymond
Molyneaux, James
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
More, Jasper
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Waddington, David


Cummer, Selwyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David
Walters, Dennis


Hannam, John (Exeter)

Ward, Dame Irene


Havers, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Warren, Kenneth


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Heseltine, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hiley, Joseph
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wilkinson, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hordern, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hornby, Richard
Pink, R. Bonner
Woodnutt, Mark


Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Pounder, Rafton
Worsley, Marcus


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Hector Monro and


Iremonger, T. L.
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Keith Speed.


James, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James





NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
English, Michael
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'bn&amp;St. P'cras, S.)


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
John, Brynmor


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Cant, R. B.
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm,Northfield)
Forrester, John
Kaufman, Gerald


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kinnock, Neil


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Latham, Arthur


Concannon, J. D.
Golding, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Crawshaw, Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Cronin, John
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hamling, William
Lipton, Marcus


Dalyell, Tam
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Lomas, Kenneth


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hardy, Peter
McBride, Neil


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
Heffer, Eric S.
Mackenzie, Gregor


Dempsey, James
Huckfield, Leslie
Mackintosh, John P.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Driberg, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Janner, Greville
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Eadie, Alex
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mendelson, John







Millan, Bruce
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caervarvon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Molloy, William
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tinn, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Roper, John
Tomey, Tom


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rose, Paul B.
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Murray, Ronald King
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Ogden, Eric
Sillars, James
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Halloran, Michael
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orme, Stanley
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Spearing, Nigel



Pendry, Tom
Stallard, A. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Prescott, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Price, William (Rugby)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Strang, Gavin

Division No. 292.]
AYES
[2.58 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Osborn, John


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Goodhew, Victor
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Astor, John
Gorst, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Percival, Ian


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gray, Hamish
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Green, Alan
Pink, R. Bonner


Balniel, Lord
Grylts, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Benyon, W.
Gummsr, Selwyn
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Biffen, John
Havers, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Heseltine, Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hiley, Joseph
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Bowden, Andrew
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bray, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brcwis, John
Hordern, Peter
Rost, Peter


Bruce-Cardyne, J.
Hornby, Richard
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bryan, Paul
Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Sharpies, Richard


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray&amp;Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Simeons, Charles


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
James, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Cary, Sir Robert
Jessel, Toby
Skeet, T. H. H.


Channon, Paul
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Speed, Keith



Jopling, Michael
Spence, John


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kimball, Marcus
Sproat, Iain


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kinsey, J. R.
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Cooke, Robert
Knox, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Coombs, Derek
Lane, David
Sideline, John


Cormack, Patrick
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Critchley, Julian
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Crouch, David
McMaster, Stanley
Tebbit, Norman


Curran, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dixon, Piers
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter(Hendon, S.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maddan, Martin
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Drayson, G. B.
Made), David
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Dykes, Hugh
Maginnis, John E.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eden, Sir John
Marten, Neil
Waddington, David


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mather, Carol
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Walters, Dermis


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Warren, Kenneth.


Farr, John
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fell, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fidler, Michael
Moate, Roger
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Molyneaux, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Money, Ernie
Wilkinson, John


Fookcs, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fowler, Norman
More, Jasper
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fox, Marcus
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark




Worsley, Marcus


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Morrison, Charles (Devisee)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Fry, Peter
Mudd, David



Gardner, Edward
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Paul Hawkins.







NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hucktield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Janner, Greville
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&amp;St. P'cras, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Roper, John


Cronin, John
Judd, Frank
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Geraid
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Sillars, James


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Small, William


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Strang, Gavin


Femyhougn, Rt. Hn. E.
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas



Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Torney, Tom


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Foot, Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
Mcllish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Gilbert, Dr. John
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)



Miller, Dr. M. S.



Guiding, John
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Charles F. (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Mr. Kenneth Marks and


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Joseph Harper.